1

Monday, October 18, 2017

Immediately following GF Public Hearing Penn Room

Agenda Although Council committee meetings are open to the public, public comment is not permitted at Council Committee of the Whole meetings. However, citizens are encouraged to attend and observe the meetings. Comment from citizens or professionals during the meeting may be solicited on agenda topics via invitation by the President of Council. All electronic recording devices must be located behind the podium area in Council Chambers and located at the entry door in all other meeting rooms and offices, as per Bill No.27-2012. I. Budget Review

1. Council 2. Auditor 3. Law 4. Healthcare costs (retired and active) & Pension 5. Community Development GF 6. Community Development CDBG

a. Funding for the Penn Street Greenway (bike trail) II. Agenda Review A. Resolution – opposing House Bill 1620, the “Wireless Infrastructure Deployment” bill, which would strip municipalities of their legal authority to regulate wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way and would therefore undermine public safety and the protection of the rights-of-way Tabled at the October 9 regular meeting (Pages 7-10) B. Resolution – approving the agreement with BCTV Tabled at the October 9 regular meeting (pages 10-15) C. Resolution – ratifying the IAFF contract arbitration award for 2016-2019 (pages 16-21)

CITY COUNCIL

Committee of the Whole

2

III. Set Budget Review Topics for Oct 23rd IV. Adjourn

MINUTES October 16, 2017

Immediately following the Capital Public Hearing COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Slifko, B. Twyman, M. Goodman-Hinnershitz, S. Marmarou, D. Reed, J. Waltman OTHERS PRESENT: L. Kelleher, D. Cituk, C. Younger, R. Johnson, J. Marasco, H. Tangredi, D. Pottiger, F. Eddinger, D. Anspach, G. Steckman, K. Talbot, J. Krafczek, R. Dodson The meeting was called to order by Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz at 5:30 pm. I. WWTP Update Mr. Eddinger displayed a drone film taken by Ronca Construction of the construction progress at the WWTP. He noted the millions of dollars saved by using pre-fab concrete construction materials poured off-site and transported and placed at the WWTP. He explained how the pieces are locked into place. Mr. Eddinger noted the switch from tickling filters to anaerobic digesters. Mr. Anspach stated that the moving from trickling filters to digesters uses technology developed in European countries. The WWTP construction project has a value of $139M over 36 months and the project received a notice to proceed in early 2016. To date the project is 25% complete.

COMMITTEE of the WHOLE

CITY COUNCIL

3

Mr. Johnson stated that at some point in the near future Mr. Anspach will explain how the plant compliance process operates. Mr. Scott and Chief Stoudt arrived. Mr. Eddinger and Mr. Anspach left the meeting at this time. II. Budget Review

A. Mayor’s Office Mr. Steckman noted the salary increase approved in 2017 for one of the Mayor’s staff and that 2% salary increases are budgeted. There are no significant budgetary changes. Mr. Scott left at this time.

B. Human Relations Commission (HRC) Mr. Steckman explained that as HUD financial support has been reduced, the City’s General Fund will need to cover the cost of more of the services provided by the HRC. He explained that the budget also covers the matching funds required to the CDBG ESG (homeless) contribution. The HRC budget also includes a 2% increase in salaries. Mr. Marmarou inquired about the administration’s progress to address police retirees who have become re-employed and have access to healthcare benefits that are similar to those provided by the City. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz stated that the topic of healthcare benefits is listed later in the meeting. Mr. Slifko inquired about the workload in the HRC. Ms. Talbot stated that the staffing of the HRC has dwindled from five (5) employees to two (2) employees and the current staff has absorbed the workload, including the new process of managing the RAWA hardship fund. Mr. Cituk inquired if federal and state funds were eliminated. Ms. Talbot stated that the funding has been scaled back to a point where the funding does not meet the demand for services. She explained the wide array of services the HRC is expected to provide in addition to managing complaints about unfair housing and employment. She noted that RAWA recently increased their payment for the management of the hardship program.

C. Administrative Services • IT Division

4

Mr. Steckman stated that the vacant IT Position has been eliminated. He stated that consulting services have decreased and service fees and machinery/equipment have increased. Mr. Tangredi stated that the next portion of the IT upgrade will outfit the fire apparatus with computers. The cost will be captured and charged back to fire. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz inquired if the eliminated position will affect the function of IT. Mr. Steckman stated that the eliminated position will be revisited in 2018-19.

• Administrative Services Director Mr. Slifko stated that while he understands the administration’s desire to keep the Administrative Services Director position unfilled, the Charter requires the position and it needs to be included in the position ordinance. Ms. Kelleher noted that the Charter Section 702.a.iv also requires each department director to have a confidential assistant. Mr. Steckman stated that the director position is in the Position Ordinance, it is just not funded in the budget.

• HR Division Mr. Steckman stated that the new HR Manager Danny Gilmore Jr. starts working for the City tomorrow. The Benefits Coordinator position has also been filled. He noted that beginning in January 2018, the City will begin the random drug testing of non-union employees. Mr. Steckman explained that there is a surplus in the Vacancy Allowance which will allow the City to consider increasing the salaries for some management positions. He explained that in 2017 PFM allowed the City to create a Vacancy Allowance similar in structure to the Police Vacancy Allowance. He stated that all positions are funded for a full year, although some are not filled until some point during the middle of the fiscal year, which creates a salary surplus. Ms. Kelleher stated that the Vacancy Allowance is separated into groups of Management, FOP, IAFF, AFSCME Rank and File and AFSCME 1st Level Supervisor employees.

• Accounting Division Mr. Steckman introduced Kyra Berkove who is the Accounting Manager. He explained her background in the accounting field. A Revenue Manager position was added in 2017; however, this position is currently unfilled.

5

Mr. Steckman noted that the recovering economy has created a difficult period for the City. While unemployment is down, various positions in the community have increasing salaries which makes it difficult to attract employees. He also noted that current City employees are also leaving to earn more money with other companies. He noted that often times the City is forced to increase the salary for a position that has been vacated by a City employee.

• Purchasing Office Mr. Steckman explained that in 2017 Council approved moving the part-time employee to full-time, creating two (2) full-time positions in Purchasing. III. City Hall Security Cameras Mr. Steckman distributed materials about the new camera system that were collected when the discussion was completed due to security purposes. He stated that the proposed system will cover all four (4) floors of City Hall and that the video will be viewed in the VSU area. The system has 36 terabytes of storage which equates to about 30 days. The system is designed as a security feature for employees and visitors. Mr. Johnson stated that the Public Works Building on North 6th Street has a video security system that is adequate for the amount of walk-ins at the building. Council agreed to revisit this issue at the October 23rd regular meeting. IV. 3rd Quarter Financials Ms. Kelleher distributed copies of the 3rd Quarter Financial reports. Mr. Steckman explained that the EIT revenue is increased, along with the Real Estate Transfer Tax and Admissions Tax. He noted that overall revenues have reached 80% at the end of September and expenditures are only at 64%. Mr. Steckman stated that at some point in time, the economy will stabilize and the revenues will be capped. Mr. Slifko requested information on the City’s staffing needs. Mr. Steckman stated that this report was previously provided but he will look at it again and attempt to revise it. Mr. Marmarou left the meeting at this time. V. Other Mr. Waltman suggested adding budget review for the Council Office, Auditor’s Office, Law Office and Healthcare and Pension to the October 18th Budget Review meeting.

6

Mr. Steckman stated that he has several executive session topics to address as well. Ms. Kelleher noted that Mr. Younger has prepared an update on outstanding litigation. Council went into executive session to discuss a contractual matter at 7:15 pm. Everyone but Mr. Steckman, Mr. Younger, Mr. Krafczek, Ms. Kelleher and the remaining five members of Council left the meeting at this time. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 pm

Respectfully Submitted by Linda A. Kelleher, CMC, City Clerk

7

Drafted by: Asst. Solicitor Sponsored/Referred by: Managing Director Introduced on: Advertised on: N/A

RESOLUTION NO._______2017

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF READNIG

IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 1620, ENTITLED THE “WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT BILL”

WHEREAS, broadband service is a critical catalyst for economic development, student

achievement, quality healthcare, and the efficiency of local governments. As such, the City of

Reading supports the deployment of broadband services—both wired and wireless—in our

community and throughout the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, a relatively new wireless technology, known as distributed antenna systems

or DAS, includes the placement of wireless towers and antennae in the public rights-of-way; and

WHEREAS, Pennsylvania municipalities are charged by state law with the management

of the public rights-of-way, including not only vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but also the

numerous facilities installed by public utilities and related companies. Municipalities must manage

these facilities to maintain public safety and preserve the character of our communities; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, municipalities have the right to regulate the

“placement, construction, and modification” of wireless facilities through their local zoning

authority so that the deployment of these facilities is achieved in an orderly fashion. The FCC has

also issued multiple orders stating in detail how municipalities may regulate these facilities; and

WHEREAS, House Bill 1620, entitled the “Wireless Infrastructure Deployment” bill,

would strip municipalities of their legal authority to regulate wireless facilities in the public rights-

of-way and would therefore undermine public safety and the protection of the rights-of-way; and

8

WHEREAS, specifically HB 1620 would abolish municipal zoning authority over

wireless antennae in the rights-of-way and nearly abolish their authority over wireless towers in

the rights-of-way, thereby placing public safety at risk and removing the public from the approval

process for towers and antennae; and

WHEREAS, HB 1620 would prohibit municipalities from requiring standard legal

protections from companies with wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way, including full

indemnification, bonding, and insurance coverage; and

WHEREAS, HB 1620 would severely limit the assessment of fees for wireless facilities

in the rights-of-way such that municipalities could only charge minimal fees that are less than

actual municipal costs; and

WHEREAS, HB 1620 would allow wireless contractors to submit up to 50 permit requests

in one application and would curtail the time frame for initial review of wireless applications from

30 days to 10 days such that municipalities would be unable to perform these reviews in time; and

WHEREAS, HB 1620 would allow wireless companies to reverse a denial of a wireless

application simply by resubmitting a revised application without having to obtain zoning approval.

WHEREAS, HB 1620 would expose outside municipal Solicitors and other municipal law

firms to financial liability of up to $10,000 per occurrence simply for drafting a wireless ordinance

that is deemed to be in violation of HB 1620.

WHEREAS, if the Pennsylvania General Assembly is permitted to abolish municipal

right-of-way authority over wireless facilities today, then it could abolish all municipal authority

over the public rights-of-way tomorrow.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,

1. The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as

being true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. That the City Council of the City of Reading does hereby express its opposition to HB 1620

because it is not in the best interests of Pennsylvania.

9

3. That this Resolution shall be sent to our State Representative(s), State Senator, Governor,

and all Members of the House Consumer Affairs Committee, which is the Committee to

which HB 1620 has been assigned.

_____________________________President of Council

ATTEST: _______________________ City Clerk

August 7, 2017 Hon. Nick Miccarelli Hon. Frank Farry Hon. Dominic Costa 432 Irvis Office Bldg. 52B East Wing 217 Irvis Office Bldg. P.O. Box 202162 P.O. Box 202142 P.O. Box 202021 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Hon. Pam Snyder Hon. Gene DiGirolomo Hon. Thomas Murt 112 Irvis Office Bldg. 49 East Wing 410 Irvis Office Bldg. P.O. Box 202050 P.O. Box 202018 P.O. Box 202152 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: Opposition to H.B. 1620 Regarding Regulation of Wireless Facilities Dear State Representatives Miccarelli, Farry, Costa, Snyder, DiGirolamo, and Murt: The undersigned municipal associations, which represent nearly all of the 2,600 municipalities in the Commonwealth, have been working together for some time regarding the management of wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way. We have reviewed House Bill 1620, which you have cosponsored, and have concluded that the bill is not in the best interests of Pennsylvania. In our opinion, it would undermine local management of the public rights-of-way, harm public safety, remove the public from the wireless facility approval process, strip municipalities of their basic legal protections, and violate federal wireless siting law. As you know, Pennsylvania municipalities are charged by state law with the oversight and maintenance of the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. This includes the maintenance of perhaps the most important physical asset of every municipality, namely the public rights-of-way. Municipalities actively manage the public rights-of-way, not only with respect to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but also with respect to the numerous types of facilities being placed there by public utilities and related companies. These include gas, electric, water, cable, telecommunications, and wireless facilities. Municipalities must manage these facilities in a manner that maintains public safety and preserves the character of their communities. As such, Pennsylvania municipalities have an immediate and direct interest in the management of towers, antennae, and related wireless equipment in the public rights-of-way.

10

Our members strongly support the deployment of high-speed broadband service throughout the Commonwealth. Whether achieved through wired or wireless networks (or a combination of both), broadband deployment is critical to elevating Pennsylvania in the areas of economic development, academic achievement, health care advancement, the maintenance of residential property values, and the efficiency of local governments. The rollout of wireless distributed antenna system (“DAS”) facilities, however, must be done in an orderly fashion that preserves public safety and protects the public rights-of-way. H.B. 1620 would have the opposite result if enacted in its current form. Federal law grants to local governments the legal right to regulate the “placement, construction, and modification” of wireless facilities through their zoning authority. At the same time, federal and state laws grant numerous protections to the wireless industry and expressly restrict municipalities from over-regulation of wireless facilities. These include, but are not limited to, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) “Shot Clock” Ruling of 2009, the Spectrum Act of 2012, the Pennsylvania Wireless Broadband Collocation Act of 2012, and the FCC’s Wireless Report and Order of 2014. All of these statutes and rulings restrict local government regulation and promote the deployment of wireless facilities. Indeed, the wireless industry is fully protected now under federal and state law without the need for H.B. 1620. Municipalities in Pennsylvania cannot and will not surrender their right to manage their public rights-of-way or to use their zoning authority to promote orderly development and preserve the integrity of their communities. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues and work collaboratively to prevent the detrimental impact that would result from the enactment of H.B. 1620. Sincerely yours, __________________________ __________________________ David M. Sanko Richard J. Schuettler, Executive Director Executive Director Pennsylvania State Association of Pennsylvania Municipal League (PML) Township Supervisors (PSATS) __________________________ __________________________ Christopher Cap Richard J. Schuettler, Executive Director Executive Director Pennsylvania State Association of Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB) Township Commissioners (PSATC) cc: Members, House Consumer Affairs Committee Pennsylvania House Majority and Minority Leadership

Drafted by Man Dir

11

Sponsored by/Referred by Man Dir Introduced on October 9, 2017 Advertised on

R E S O L U T I O N N O.________- 2017 WHEREAS, the City Administration and City Council agree to enter into an agreement with Berks Community Television, also known as BCTV, to continue to develop and provide cable services that will be in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Administration and City Council recognize the need to provide a

community access channel and delegate the responsibility of access channel

management to BCTV, as set forth in this agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

READING:

That the City of Reading enters into an agreement with Berks Community Television, also known as BCTV, to provide and manage community access channel services as set forth in this agreement. ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ____________2017

______________________________________ COUNCIL PRESIDENT

ATTEST: ___________________________________ CITY CLERK

12

13

14

15

16

Drafted by: City Clerk Sponsored/Referred by: Managing Director Introduced on: October 23, 2017 Advertised on: N/A

R E S O L U T I O N NO._____2017

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF READING HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Ratifying the arbitration award pertaining to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Reading and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) effective January 1, 2016 and expiring December 31, 2019.

Adopted by Council__________________________, 2017

___________________________________ President of Council

Attest: _______________________ Linda A. Kelleher CMC City Clerk

17

18

19

20

21