Special Council Meeting: Budget Veto Override Vote - Dec 30, 2025

On December 30, 2025, the Allentown City Council convened a special meeting to deliberate on Resolution 199, a measure to override the mayor's veto of the 2026 budget bills (84-90). The session featured a heated debate regarding a proposal involving a 3.96% tax increase offset by a $50 reduction in the solid waste fee, alongside discussions on the absence of a default budget in the city charter and the potential for a 2026 government shutdown without an agreement. Public testimony largely focused on the impact of tax increases on renters, seniors on fixed incomes, and the city's financial transparency, while council members deliberated on a compromise plan and the necessity of incremental raises versus deferring decisions.

Consent Calendar

• No items listed in the transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Speaker representing citizens of Allentown: Expressed opposition to the mayor's budget and the failure to override the veto; argued that the mayor prioritizes tax advantages for downtown developers over city workers and homeless services; accused the administration of cronyism and noted ongoing lawsuits against the police department; stated that residents are unable to afford rent, medication, and groceries; strongly urged council members to vote against the mayor to support the majority of citizens.
• Joseph Maher (Former County Commissioner/Attorney): Expressed support for overriding the veto; clarified that there is no default budget in Allentown, meaning a failure to pass a budget results in no budget for 2026; sought clarification from council regarding the context of the revenue increase versus the solid waste fee issue.
• Speaker from Allentown: Expressed strong opposition to tax increases; stated that further increases could lead to more homelessness and displacement; called for an unbiased investigation into the budget and spending under the current administration; expressed resolve to scrutinize future budget spending in 2026.
• Speaker from Allentown PA community group: Expressed opposition to tax increases; proposed an alternative revenue source by converting the Hamilton Street Dam into a hydroelectric generating station; noted that other options for raising capital were not enacted.
• Landlady (12th and Shoemaker): Expressed support for the mayor's proposal which included a $50 trash fee reduction; argued that reducing the fee by $50 while maintaining a small tax increase results in a net tax savings for many homeowners; expressed concern that landlords might use the tax increase alone as an excuse to raise rents, rather than using the $50 reduction as leverage.
• Council Member (Speaker on public comment): Opposed the override, arguing that the compromise (3.96% tax increase plus $50 trash reduction) is beneficial; stated that 23,000 out of 26,000 homes will pay less or break even under the proposal; emphasized that the solid waste fee is a mandatory contract increase and that the tax increase is only a small increment; argued that overriding the veto kicks the can down the road and ignores the benefit of the compromise for seniors.
• Council Member (Speaker on public comment): Criticized the compromise as "kicking the can down the road"; argued that borrowing $50 from the solid waste fund creates a liability to be paid back over five years with interest, effectively meaning taxpayers will still pay the full amount eventually; stated that the city officials are creating a false impression of relief when no free lunch exists.
• Barbara Redman: Corrected a previous speaker's assumption that West End residents can afford tax increases; stated that many in the West End are retirees on fixed incomes; expressed a preference to eliminate the tax increase entirely, even if it means paying the full trash fee.
• Candida (West End homeowner): Expressed concern regarding housing bubble risks and the inability to afford tax increases on a fixed income; stated that property values have dropped and that property taxes are a burden.
• Speaker (Council Member/Staff): Argued that while local taxes are a factor, they must be viewed in the context of broader economic pressures including rising medical costs, grocery prices, and utility increases; stated that corporate greed drives rent increases and that the transfer tax increase targets corporate owners; noted that the Allentown School District managed to fund itself without raising taxes despite being underfunded; expressed support for overriding the veto based on the broader economic context.
• Unidentified Council Member: Stated they will not override the veto; acknowledged the budget crisis but emphasized the need to use resident money responsibly; noted that 23,000 homeowners will pay less under the compromise, which they view as a significant benefit.

Discussion Items

• Resolution 199 (Veto Override): The resolution, sponsored by Councilpersons Zuko, Gurloch, Santos, and Moda (transcript mentions "Zuko, Gurloch, Santos and I mean Santos in MODA"), seeks to override the mayor's veto of the 2026 budget bills.
• Budget Default Status: The City Solicitor clarified that under the current charter, there is no default budget for the City of Allentown; a referendum in 2019 established that the council and administration must agree on a budget, and a failure to pass one would result in a 2026 with no operational budget.
• The $50 Trash Fee Compromise: A discussion ensued regarding a proposal to reduce the solid waste fee by $50 while maintaining a 3.96% tax increase. Council members debated whether this netted savings for 23,000 homes or merely deferred costs.
• Solid Waste Fund Borrowing: The Controller and Solicitor explained the financial mechanism: the solid waste fund is borrowing $50 per household (approx. $1.5 million total) from the general fund, to be repaid over five years with interest (estimated 2.5% to 3.9%), paid back via the general fund (taxpayers) rather than directly through a new fee increase immediately. One council member argued this is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and does not eliminate the ultimate cost.
• Procedural Disputes: A motion was made to revisit the amended proposal after the vote failed. The presiding officer ruled that a motion to revisit or reconsider the action must come from one of the four members who originally voted to override the veto (the prevailing side), and since the motion came from a member who voted against the override, it was ruled out of order.

Key Outcomes

• Roll Call Vote on Resolution 199: The override of the mayor's veto failed.
  • Yeas (4): Ms. Effa, Ms. Garlot, Ms. Moda, Mr. Santos, Mr. Juko (Note: Transcript lists 5 names for "Yes" in the roll call section: "Ms. Garlot. Yes. Miss Moda. Yes. Mr. Napoli. No. Santos. Yes. Juko. Yes. Mr. Hendrix. No. Mr. President, I have four years and three nays." The tally provided at the end is "four years and three nays", and the names listed as "Yes" were Effa, Garlot, Moda, Santos, Juko - suggesting a discrepancy or miscount in the transcript's spoken tally vs names. Based on the final stated tally of "four years and three nays", the vote failed).
  • Nays (3): Mr. Napoli, Mr. Hendrix, Mr. President (implied or explicitly stated as part of the 3 nays).
  • Final Tally: 4 Yeas, 3 Nays (Need 5 votes to override).
• Result: The mayor's veto stands; the 2026 budget as vetoed is not enacted by this override.
• Procedural Outcome: The motion to revisit the amended budget proposal was ruled out of order because it was not made by a member who voted in the majority (override) on the original resolution. The meeting was adjourned.