Dormont Borough Council Workshop – June 15, 2026

This workshop was called to discuss a proposed Special Events Ordinance aimed at overhauling the borough’s fragmented event permitting process. Borough Manager John Stinner outlined numerous deficiencies in the current system, and council members along with the public raised concerns about clarity, cost, fairness, and implementation. No formal votes were taken; the ordinance will be rewritten and brought back for further review.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Constantine (1516 Hillsdale Ave.) stated that a 120-day application window is acceptable as long as detailed information (e.g., band lineups) is not required at that stage. Council agreed that language such as “to the extent known” would be added.
• Dana Quiddie (22931 Mattern St.) questioned the lack of community representation on the proposed special events review committee, the vague denial criteria (e.g., “will not promote … positive impact”), the risk of unequal cost burdens on events serving marginalized communities, and the absence of a cap on post-event invoices. She also asked whether a community liaison could help alleviate tensions around police cost requirements.
• Jen Kayler (2947 Belrose Ave.) asked for clarification on the five-hour event threshold (whether it includes setup/cleanup), requested a published fee schedule and cost estimates, asked how this ordinance would integrate with the existing Community Pass reservation system, and noted that the proposed insurance amounts were very high for small organizations.
• Drew Layman (Crosby Ave.) supported the goal of streamlining policies but urged the borough not to impose new costs on nonprofits like DABA (Dormont Area Business Association) that already operate on shoestring budgets and provide significant community benefit. He emphasized that events like Pride and the street music festival are not money-making ventures.
• Mary Joe (335 Windamere Ave.) asked whether the ordinance would apply to events that do not use borough property (e.g., the pub tour, which patronizes private businesses) and noted that existing events already coordinate with police and public works informally. She worried that new requirements could create unnecessary hurdles.
• Helen Kamovich (1218 Oklahoma Ave.) asked if the ordinance would affect the Dormont Elementary Community Rummage Sale (held on school property); Manager Stinner confirmed it would not.
• Christina (address not given) expressed hope that the new ordinance would help events grow and flourish rather than hinder them, noting the first year of Pride and the care taken by officials.

Discussion Items

• John Stinner, Borough Manager, presented a comprehensive list of current process deficiencies:

  • Outdated and inconsistent hold harmless agreements (e.g., still listing the defunct community gym)
  • No online event registration; must finalize in person or by phone
  • Inconsistent facility cancellation policies across different borough properties
  • Only the police receive the first page of event permits; other departments (management, emergency management, public works) are not copied
  • No opportunity for event organizers to request or decline borough resources upfront
  • Permits are issued to individuals only, not organizations
  • Community Pass lacks a complete list of rentable spaces, limiting revenue
  • Fee schedule does not distinguish between public, private, and nonprofit events
  • Payment methods are outdated; no modern options
  • No clear delineation of when borough resources are required (e.g., police, barricades)
  • No coordination for private events in the business district (e.g., Potomac Ave.)
  • Alcohol permit definitions are the only ordinance section that delineates the three types of alcohol permits.

• Council Member Kate Abel Fabus raised multiple issues:

  • The proposed 999-person threshold in §154-3 is likely a typo; council must set a consistent number (e.g., 500).
  • The 15-day approval window in §154-7 is too tight; suggested 30 days or longer for large events, with a corresponding application deadline (e.g., 120 days out).
  • Applicants who rent borough facilities (e.g., park with restrooms/trash) should not be required to provide those items separately; language should carve out rental inclusions.
  • Post-event reimbursement for additional services should be estimated and provided at approval, not billed later with no cap.
  • The denial standard “the event will not promote or have a positive impact on the Dormont community” is too subjective.
  • Suggested a waiver or proactive hold-harmless acknowledgment for events where all parties agree that no extra police or borough resources are needed, but public safety would still override.
  • Insurance requirements for all vendors (e.g., artists at Art in the Park) are overly broad; should target food/alcohol vendors.
  • Asked whether the ordinance should treat nonprofit events differently from for-profit events.

• Council Member Shawn Melvin echoed many of Kate’s points and added:

  • §154-8C (post-event reimbursement) needs clarification—what constitutes “actual costs incurred”? (e.g., extra cleanup after event).
  • Estimated costs should be provided upfront, with actual costs reconciled after.
  • §154-6C (description of equipment/performers) should reference the local noise ordinance and whether waivers are available; asked if the borough has decibel-measuring equipment (it does not).
  • §154-6I (inspection requirement) is contradictory: “shall allow for the inspection” and “attach the inspection report to the application” cannot both be done at application time.

• Council Member Chris Rieger noted that the definition of the special events committee in §154-4 includes the borough solicitor, which he and others felt was inappropriate; the solicitor should be consulted, not a member of the sign-off group. He proposed the sign-off group be: manager, police chief (or designee), fire chief (or designee), public works director, and emergency management coordinator. He also questioned having both the assistant manager and manager, and both parks and public works, suggesting combining where possible.

• Police Chief (likely Bizignani) and Fire Chief/EMC Jeff Turko commented on the need for in-person meetings for large events (e.g., street festival) to coordinate logistics and emergency operations plans (EOPs). Chief Bizignani noted they already gather intelligence through the Chiefs of Police Association and the DA’s office. Chief Turko advocated for at least one meeting for major events and suggested using virtual tools (Teams) for smaller coordination.

• Council President Amie Downs and Council Member Joshua Munson discussed the budgetary implications: any decision to have the borough pay for police/fire/DPW services must be uniform—either all event organizers pay or the borough budget sets aside funds. Manager Stinner clarified that borough-sponsored events (Dormont Day, Street Music Festival, Holiday Event, Rec Board movies) already have resources in the budget. Private events or those by external organizations would need to cover costs. For police, the current fee schedule charges $108.28 per officer per hour for outside events; this is a set fee not based on an officer’s seniority.

• Council Member Chris Kipp raised the point that the 120-day application window may be too far out for events that are still in planning stages. Community members noted that if details are not required upfront (only “to the extent known”), 120 days is acceptable.

Key Outcomes

• Manager John Stinner will rewrite the ordinance incorporating all council and public comments, clarifying conflicting language, and will bring a revised draft to another council workshop.
• Council requested cost projections from the chiefs (police, fire, public works, emergency management) for typical large events so that council can make an informed decision on whether the borough or event organizers should pay for additional services.
• No votes or formal decisions were taken; this was a workshop for feedback and discussion. The next step is a second workshop after the revised ordinance is prepared.