Lemon Street - Mandatory Replacement of Sidewalks & Curbs
Residents of Lemon Street are being required to replace their sidewalks and curbs within twelve months, causing much concern among property owners.
Earlier this month, property owners on Lemon Street between Broad Street & Graystone Road received this letter.
The borough is replacing the infrastructure below the road and then planning to reconstruct the road surface. The zoning officer reports that most of the sidewalks and curbs are showing signs of deterioration, and they want to have the new sidewalks and curbs installed to prevent unnecessary digging up of a freshly constructed street.
All of this is legal, even though it sucks. State law allows for this, even though at the end of the day, the sidewalk isn't even our property.
If you wish to refer to the borough ordinances regarding the sidewalks, visit the following links:
Property Owner Response
As expected, there was a very cold reception to this as evidenced at the borough Committee meeting on May 26. Approximately 12 citizens showed up to voice their displeasure with a number of items regarding the mandated sidewalks. For the sake of brevity, here's a basic overview of the issues expressed by these property owners:
The timing is awful. We're in the midst of horrible economic conditions and our dollar doesn't go as far as it did just two years ago. Coupled with rising costs of EVERYTHING, families are using their savings to make up the difference, especially when it comes to fueling vehicles. One estimate for a property on Lemon Street was nearly $10,000 for sidewalks and curbs. This is going to cause economic hardship for some property owners. One attendee even expressed that the borough has some of the highest taxes in the county, and it's almost becoming easier to live in Lititz than East Pete.
Some citizens are upset that the borough appears to be hiding behind the front man for this, the zoning officer. There was displeasure stated about how the council members would not put their names to a mandate they've given the taxpayers.
To add insult to injury, not only do the property owners have to come up with several thousand dollars in a very short time, they also have to PAY for the privilege of being forced to replace sidewalks and curbs. That's right, it's a $75 permit fee. Granted, that pays for the zoning officer or borough engineer to come out, ensure that the process is done right, and perform a final inspection. Regardless, the optics aren't great. Several residents have asked the council to consider waiving the permit fee since they are being forced to get the work done.
If citizens are required to spend money (and possibly go into debt) being forced to repair common-use infrastructure, why aren't the borough's sidewalks and curbs in compliance? For example, if you walk in front of the community building by the park, the sidewalk is not 4' width and it is asphalt according to some in attendance.
If you hold the borough accountable for their property, it will impact your taxes.
Some citizens took that as a threat, that if the borough was forced to replace infrastructure that was not ADA compliant, it could impact taxes. Michael is not the type who makes threats though, he's very by the book. It's all true, if the borough must replace these things, it will become a taxpayer expense. On the other side of the coin, how can the borough demand residents to maintain infrastructure to comply with ordinances, but their own sidewalks/curbing do not?
"Do you not budget for maintenance?"
When a citizen when asking questions, Mayor Malone asked her, "do you not budget for maintenance..."? That statement was a bit passive-aggressive and comes across as if the homeowner is too dumb to understand. But not every homeowner understands that the sidewalk and curbs are theirs to maintain. In a perfect world, every property owner would be fully aware of their responsibilities to the property and so forth, but we know that isn't the case. It has never been the case in any municipality.
Clearing up misunderstanding with the Mayor
Evidently before the meeting started, Mayor Malone had asked Council if they wanted to move the public comment to the beginning. I was not there for the statement, so I don't want to quote. However, it was reported by citizens in attendance that he had asked to have the citizens go first to get that over with (or something along those lines). Several in attendance had taken issue with this, but the Mayor quickly clarified his statement. In the Mayor's defense, I have ALWAYS heard him encourage people to attend the meetings. I truly believe that he was asking Council to move the public comment up front so the citizens didn't have to sit through the whole business meeting, if they didn't want to.
Next steps - How you get involved
For the majority of us, the Lemon Street issue may not be of any concern. But, this very well could be a cost forced on you in the future as the borough improves upon its infrastructure. Here's a few things that I took away from the meeting for those impacted:
Come together as one. As evidenced in the Committee meeting, a number of taxpayers showing up (and especially voicing displeasure) gets attention.
The council is not going to change their stance on this, you will have to comply. Otherwise, you face increased costs from penalties and a potential lien against your property.
Get multiple quotes, and then get multiple property owners to select ONE company to perform the work. The cost of overhead for the contractor goes down by making fewer visits to perform construction.
Keep showing up at every meeting. As we will provide evidence in another post, your public comment could be limited. Reiterate the requests for waiving the permit fees. If public comment is limited in the future, you should contact our borough manager Karen St. Claire to be added to the agenda for the next Committee meeting. Whatever happens, we will not allow members of Council to arbitrarily limit our right to speak.