| |
| MAIN NEWS |
|
Business Directory Now Online!!!
Please visit our kind sponsors |
|
||||||
|
HEADLINES: Unusual in Forest City, a July 5 business meeting opened with a hearing concerning Ordinance 453, Repair, Removal of Any Dangerous Structure. The property in question was 92, 94, 96, 98 Maxey Street, a condemned rental unit. Although the property owners had signed for a letter of notice, they were not present at the hearing. Borough solicitor Paul E. Smith explained that a porch on the property is pulling away from the building, contributing to a sagging porch roof. According to a code inspections report, the “footing is no longer capable of supporting the porch.” Fred Nemac of Code Inspections, Inc., conducted the building investigation and wrote the report. At the hearing, he stated, “No one should be on the porch.” Several times, Smith asked Nemac if the porch could conceivably be repaired. Nemac confirmed that the porch could be repaired. “Removal is down the road at this point.” Nemac predicted that if the porch is not repaired before this winter, it will not be worth repairing. Nemac also confirmed that the building has a leaking roof and is harboring vermin. Two borough residents stated that a tarp has been on the building roof for three years, and in terms of maintaining the building, “Nobody does a thing.” The residents expressed concern that the building is a fire hazard; in the event of a blaze, they said, neighboring houses could be destroyed. “Extensive repair needs to be done” if the building is to be rented, Smith asserted. However, he cautioned council, “Property rights are strongly supported in this country.” As further evidence to support the borough’s claims, he advised, council should hire a structural engineer to determine whether the building itself can be salvaged. Following Smith’s advice, council passed a motion to order porch repairs to the Maxey Street building and an interior inspection by a structural engineer. The property owners will have a thirty-day appeal period. Questions arose about other dilapidated buildings in town. A resident who previously discussed the Maxey Street building asked for information concerning the bar on the corner of Hudson and Maxey Streets. Council president Robert Trusky confirmed that the building is secured and has been deemed structurally sound. However, he stated, it has not been inspected for rental use at this point. An orange apartment building in town was also discussed. Trusky confirmed that tenants currently are residing in the building, although it has not been inspected. Susquehanna County Housing and Urban Development has been notified, and the borough is awaiting a hearing at the magistrate’s office. Date for completion of the sewer lines was discussed. A meeting between Forest City Borough Council, the DEP, USDA and a representative from Senator Baker’s office was held recently in an effort to resolve technicalities. Currently, the borough is in some danger of losing certain grants and loans and is awaiting approval from DEP to begin the sewer project. “Hopefully we’re going to have a resolution to this within the next few months,” Trusky added. Concerning a matter tabled from last month, council passed a motion to charge a five-dollar refundable deposit for new recycling bins. The bins cost the borough approximately ten dollars. Although all council members did not approve of charging for the bins, it was pointed out that residents do not have to use bins purchased from the borough. Residents are reminded that garbage must be placed inside the yellow garbage bags and cannot simply be draped over regular trash bags. Bags should not weigh more than thirty-five pounds. In response to a trend of large groups of people congregating on Main Street, council requested that Smith research a loitering law for the street.
Brief New Milford Business At the beginning of the July 6 New Milford Borough meeting, some minor updates were provided on various matters. The ads went in for the paving of the walking track. The car curbs were delivered; these had been discussed at a previous meeting. A letter had been received from Liberty Power regarding power generation rate caps. They had sent a pamphlet explaining the various electric companies and the costs. A visitor said that that company had contacted her, and she had been quoted a certain price. There was confusion over the price after she performed more research, and she cautioned those present to be very careful. The meeting moved on to several items of correspondence. It was confirmed that the letter in opposition to the work at the landfill had been sent. A letter had been received from the Susquehanna County sheriff's office. Background checks had been completed on the lifeguard applicants. A letter had been received regarding a fire escrow ordinance, and whether or not the borough had one. The borough did not, but it was questioned whether or not they ought to. The secretary had an example of such an ordinance with her, from another local municipality. During the mayor's report, it was stated that there were five gallons of waterproofing paint. It was recommended that this paint be used on the garage. Also, he had looked at the pavilion in the park. It was recommended that perhaps the borough borrow the municipal authority's power washer. It was his thought that if the borough was going to fix up the gazebo, it may as well be done correctly. Apparently the grate at Depot Street was stolen. A resident had called the report into the police, and the street department had also known it. To have one welded would be $480 dollars. The mayor explained that the problem was the necessity to have a high traffic grate, so that a truck wouldn't break through when driving across it. The municipal authority had also had three manhole covers stolen. The brake retarder ordinance was mentioned. A letter was read from PennDOT, where they found that they could not enact the ordinance on Route 492 due to the grade and a recent history of runaway truck style crashes. It could be enacted, however, on Route Eleven, and Route Eight Forty-Eight. The mayor suggested that the borough's attorney also ask who would take on the expense of legal action for issues regarding the brake retarder ordinance. The question was posed as to whether it would be the state's burden, or the municipality's as they erected the sign. It was decided that the ordinance would be sent to the attorney before any further action was taken. It was clarified during the police section of the meeting that the parks were off limits after nine. This would be a trespassing violation.
Courthouse Report DEEDS Robert M. Davis (by atty), Gregory T. and Cathy A. Liggett (AKA) Cathy A. Leggett to Gregory T. and Cathy A. Liggett and Robert M. Davis, in Bridgewater Township for one dollar. Drucilla Andrews Gerrells (NBM) Drucilla Andrews to Gordon J. Vanvleck and Kathleen J. Stevens, in Liberty Township for one dollar. Travis and Natalie N. Laing, Tara Crittenden and Amy Baugus to Hemlock Springs VA LLC, Travis and Natalie N. Laing, in Rush Township for one dollar. Joseph and Mary Ann Frick to Clint L. Long, in Forest Lake Township for $167,000.00. Mildred J. Riepe and Karen R. Klein to Mildred J. Riepe, in Dimock Township for one dollar. Mildred J. Riepe and Karen R. Klein to Mildred J. Riepe, in Dimock Township for one dollar. Thomas L. and Susan K. Lafave to Thomas L. (trust) and Susan K. (trust) Lafave, in Gibson Township for one dollar. Thomas L. and Susan K. Lafave to Thomas L. (trust) and Susan K. (trust) Lafave, in New Milford Township for one dollar. Rita A. Wood (estate) to Barbara Duran, in Silver Lake Township for one dollar. Rita A. Wood (estate) to Barbara Duran, in Silver Lake Township for one dollar. Ida Mae and Billy C. Strickland to Bradley Strickland, in Lathrop Township for $10.00. Ronald W., Howard A. and Kenneth R. Sharer and Walter H. Sharer & Sons (TA) to Walter Sharer & Sons LP, in Rush Township for one dollar. Marion E. Gulick (estate) to Marsha A. Labonte, in New Milford Borough for $67,275.00. Myron R., III and Tammie L. Denney to David L. and Wendy L. Hansen, in Oakland Township for $159,900.00. Elaine Rowlands (by sheriff) to Honesdale National Bank, in Forest City for $2,741.82. Frank W. Sidorowicz to John C. Lackey, in New Milford Township for $97,500.00. Robert A. and Donna C. Coleman to Todd and Jennifer Schmidt, in Gibson Township for $150,000.00. Wells Fargo Bank to United Sates Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in Liberty Township for one dollar. George L. and Bonnie M. Laird to Bonnie M. Laird (trust), in Auburn Township for one dollar. MARRIAGES Jeffrey Charles Conklin and Sara Jane Verboys, both of Susquehanna. Dustin Ray Johnson and Amanda L. Jones, both of Montrose. James Gerald Smith and Deua L. Traver, both of Montrose. Kevin J. Spickerman and Madiurys K. Nava Pineda, both of Montrose. Michael John Wayman and Amanda S. Carey, both of Hallstead. Paul M. Kelley and Amber M. Sickler, both of Montrose. Ethan Charles Harkleroad of Clarks Summit and Codielee Brett Decker of Kingsley. Jason Brent Bush and Jennifer L. MacGeorge, both of Montrose. Francis M. Hagemeyer, Jr. and Britney Lynne Cross, both of Kingsley. Arthur E. Price, III and Jennifer R. Edwards, both of Mesa, AZ. Chad M. Jones and Nan Hwom Noon, both of Hallstead. Jeremy M. Wagner and Anna E. Hoffman, both of Montrose. Carl Alan Zurn and Emily Anne Knott, both of Hallstead. BENCH WARRANTS The Susquehanna County Domestic Relations Section has bench warrants for the following individuals as of 9:30 a.m. on July 8, 2011. Craig J. Anderson, Edward R. Ashman, BillieJean Beemer, Tonya S. Birchard, Douglas Buckman, Howard A. Burns, III, Jason J. Carroll, James J. Corridoni, Randall L. Cox, Heather R. DeBoer, Charles S. Dunn, John F. Feeley, David J. Fischer, Dustin Godfrey, David Haines, Jr., Shannon J. Hollister, Steven L. Jones, Christopher J. Kingsbury, Eric C. Kohlhepp, Erik E. Krisovitch, Lee Labor, Charlie J. Legere, Carlos L. Leiser, Lydia M. Marvin, Michael Maryasz, Mark C. McCarey, Jennifer M. Miller, Matthew S. Miller, Donald Palmer, Jeremy Presson, Perry Rohan, Roy E. Rosenbaum, David J. Shiner, Peter S. Showalter, Eric J. Snell, Justin Thompson, Steven G. Warner, Steven G. Wormuth. Please contact the Domestic Relations Section at 570-278-4600 ext. 170 with any information on the location of these individuals.
Great Bend Borough, Briefly A lazy summer evening - who wants to sit inside discussing paving and “Water on Washington Street?” The Great Bend Borough Council made short work of a short agenda on July 7, with nothing much to report on Spring Street repairs by the Sewer Authority, or an ordinance for off-street parking. Bret Jennings is still researching court cases for his proposed ordinance protecting the community’s water supply. The Borough doesn’t have a codes enforcement officer any more, and they’re still looking for someone willing to represent the Borough on the Board of the Hallstead Great Bend Joint Sewer Authority. And Borough Secretary Sheila Guinan said she had received no bids to paint the interior of the Borough Building (which is also the Blue Ridge Senior Center). The nascent borough police department is also awaiting completion of its office in the borough garage. Council President Rick Franks suggested that if the office isn’t done soon, perhaps the police department could be located elsewhere temporarily, just to “move it along.” Council holds separate meetings about the creation of the police department each month; this month it will be on Monday, July 18. Ms. Guinan reported that the Cosmellos have offered to place a bin to collect metals from borough residents and would pay $25 for the privilege. Council decided, however, to continue with the industrial dumpster they’re using now, considering it safer and less accessible to small children. It is thought to cost about $75, but although it was a popular move at first, it hasn’t been emptied in recent memory. The Crooks, who maintain the cemetery, have asked to be allowed to dump the cuttings over the bank in Greenwood Park. Council was more than happy to grant the request, considering the wonderful job they do. Council member Joe Collins suggested that some signs be placed in that area to keep people from dumping household refuse and other trash. The June meeting, on the 2nd, must have been somewhat more eventful. The minutes recorded the presentation of a check for $1,000 by Ron Cranage of the VFW for maintenance of Veterans of Foreign Wars Memorial Park (formerly Recreation Park). There was also some discussion of the condition of the ballfield at the park, used by the Little League but often inundated by the nearby river in the Spring. At the same meeting, Council asked that another letter be sent to Representative Tom Marino to help get some action on a proposed emergency gate at the rest area on the interstate. And Taylor Guinan (Secretary Guinan’s son) was taken on as summer help. Andre & Son were contracted to repair the ballfield in VFW Park at a cost of $1,000, half of it to be contributed by the VFW.) And so they adjourned after only 25 minutes, a near record for these folks. They will meet again, as they always do, on the first Thursday of the month, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Borough Building at Elizabeth and Franklin Streets.
Montrose Sewage Saga Continues During the street department report at the July 5 Montrose Borough meeting, Mr. Ken Diphillips discussed the drainage situation on lower Locust Street, which he had been asked to investigate. He had provided council members with some information regarding the price rectifying the situation, though he understood that the 706 project would eat some of the cost for curbing and dealing with the drainage problems. It was asked what would happen if council put temporary asphalt curbs in, as it may make little sense to spend the money on curbs and piping now and then have the state do the project. It was also asked where the water was currently running to, and where it would be taken if something were done. Mr. DiPhillips responded that by the plans he'd seen, the water would be redirected to a ditch. The situation as it was, was a mess, he said. The state was to replace the two basins, it was confirmed, so that whatever the borough did should be temporary, and the state actually offered to even go further. Mr. Schuster suggested that the borough curb three quarters of the way, which led to a debate as to whether any curbing ought to be done and a discussion on options. Mr. Reimel suggested that the water be corralled and the curb postponed. This is the course of action decided upon in the end: to post the area as no parking and discuss this ruling with the neighbors, paint the streets to establish where a curb would be, and fix the runoff problem. The no parking would be on a ninety day temporary basis. There was a pipe which needed to be fixed, as the catch basins were overflowing and creating ditches on either side of the road. It was hoped that the drainage could be fixed as inexpensively as possible, as the state would likely come in and replace things anyway. Someone had also asked if it would be possible to add a little more time to the northbound stop light on Route 29, which was creating a stacking problem. There was a time discrepancy between the timing east to west and the timing north to south, due to what had once been increased traffic in the former directions. There was minor discussion regarding whether this was a council matter or a state matter, before the change was motioned and approved. Montrose was involved with a coalition which had received a grant for recycling. The borough had a shared leaf grinder, etc. as part of this. The compost was sold and the money put in a joint fund. The program was self-sustaining. Six of the municipalities wanted out of the arrangement, wondering if Montrose and three other municipalities would be alright with maintaining the equipment. Mr. Lamont was in favor of this, as the system had benefited the borough. There was some concern by Prospect Street residents over the property where a building had been torn down. The residents had approached the street department asking for guardrails. It was confirmed that there was quite a drop off at that location, and that this would be the borough's responsibility. The project would cost over $2,200 installed, according to one price quote. It was decided that the matter would be tabled, as there was fear of legal issues and right of way issues. During the police report it was asked if there was a policy for false alarms. It was responded that there was none. When someone asked if there should be, as one business had had multiple false alarms. It was also pointed out that other municipalities did have such an policy. After a few such incidents, these policies stipulated, the entity could be charged money. It was decided that this would be considered for the next meeting, and examples would be considered. A peddler's permit from John Metscher was revisited, a carryover from the last meeting. He attended that evening, identifying himself as a college student from the University of Missouri in Montrose as part of an exchange program. Students from his university were trading places with Penn State students. As part of this program, he was selling textbooks. He was the only one soliciting in Montrose. After being asked for documentation, including a copy of his driver's license for the purpose of a background check, the peddler's permit was approved. Jennifer Strickland was the next person called upon, as a representative of the Relay for Life committee requesting permission to hang their sign for the July 22 and 23 event. After it was confirmed that this could be removed before the Blueberry Festival sign needed to be hung, permission was given. Representatives of Rodenberg Diversified LLC also attended the meeting to introduce the company. When asked about a time line, it was suggested that the company was currently considering being in the area two months but hoping to extend this. Mr. Lamont said that the biggest question which had been raised about the company was whether a sewage permit and electricity were needed for a work permit. The company would be working out of a building, however, and it was a typical work site. The public would not really be coming in and out of the site. It was suggested that an occupancy permit and an L&I permit be obtained, as there was uncertainty regarding where the previous L&I permit for the property was. Mr. Lamont quipped that he had originally visited the property ready to throw stones, but that the company's representative hadn't been interested in throwing them. The only concern he had was the pipe between the two buildings, and if weight would be a problem but the company representatives explained that there shouldn't be any heavy trucks back there. The water would be accessed from the existing system from Vitale's, and there was not to be grey water on the ground. One of the company's representatives said that if the borough had any problems with their workers, they wanted to know about it. A motion was made and approved that the permit be obtained for the company, and that they be allowed to do business in the borough. It was suggested, however, that the traffic situation might get sticky with all of the companies. There were two other companies mentioned that could be traveling through town. The next item on the agenda was the St. Paul's Episcopal Church's Night Out Against Crime; the motion was made to allow them to extend geographical scope of the event and to provide sawhorses for it, so long as it did not disturb the gas station. The Montrose Municipal Authority situation was then discussed at length. Peter Carlucci, the bond council for the authority, spoke up to discuss the proposed agreement. One change that had been made would allow the borough to take credit on the authority's USDA loan, which would mean that the borough did not have to set aside as large an amount of money as had been originally feared. An e-mail was provided from the bank, explaining why they wanted the borough to co-sign and stating that they understood the borough's financial situation (and inability to come up with ten million dollars on demand). They wanted to know, though, that if a workout was required they would have access to the borough's taxing ability. Finally, a letter was provided from USDA Rural Development stating that the money would be retracted were this matter not resolved. USDA had increased the loan amount based on the visit that was received, which Mr. Carlucci felt to be a sign that agency remained committed. (It was increased from 12.4 million dollars to just over 13 million dollars.) He also pointed out that the USDA would also require a guarantee down the road. (The current agreement was only in regards to the bridge loan with the bank.) The interest rate for the USDA loan would be capped at 2 and 7/8 percent, fixed for 40 years. He said that he had attended the meeting to answer any questions. Also, he said the rural development financing would also require a guarantee from the borough, the interest rate was capped at 2 and 7/8 percent fixed for the forty year period. A visitor asked what the proposed rate to the users was, and an engineer from the project's consulting firm said that the rate would likely be increased to $55 per edu per month . A representative from the Bridgewater Authority was present, and said that their rates were going to go up to probably $85 to $90 per month, which he maintained was not sustainable for that municipality. Mr. Granahan said that the council had several questions, including the fact that they were being asked to underwrite a 10 million dollar loan. They hadn't been shown the numbers to find out how current the municipal authority was in receiving payment, so didn't know their ability to repay. He said that he understood the time constraints, but was uncomfortable not knowing about this. There was no one from council who sat on the authority (something he wanted council to reconsider). It was argued that this 10 million dollars was not to be paid from municipal revenue but from the USDA loan. However, Mr. Granahan responded that the bank loan was the riskier loan. Mr. Carlucci stated that the bank knew what they were getting into, as evidenced by the letter. They just wanted it understood that the loan would be repaid. The rates would be increased over time and the authority would be able to pay the USDA requirements. The current ordinance, it was explained, anticipated a variety of different eventualities. It allowed the engineers to file a self-liquidating report, which would not interfere with the borough's own capacity to borrow. The Bridgewater representative said he could assure those present that if they had to raise their rates, Bridgewater would be unable to meet its share of the debt load. They had delinquent bills as was. He later said he was not trying to stop the project, everyone there that night seemed to understand that it was an EPA and DEP mandate. He was just explaining the situation. This was a topic about which the various sides felt quite passionate, and the discussion became somewhat heated at times. Mr. Granahan still didn't believe Mr. Carlucci that the agreement itself expressed the same understanding of the borough's inability to produce 10 million dollars as the e-mail did. He stated that on a good day the borough had about a million dollars in assets with a tax increase. What the bank was looking for, was the taxing ability of the borough. He would be comfortable were the e-mail language incorporated into the agreement, but Mr. Carlucci didn't seem to think that the bank would do this. Mr. Granahan said that meant the bank was uncomfortable with the MMA's finances. Mr. Carlucci didn't agree. Both sides said that they hadn't been provided with the other side's financial statements. Mr. Granahan was concerned about the ability for the federal funds (USDA) to be removed, though the authority's legal representation didn't feel this would happen as they had been committed. Mr. Granahan opined that they could still be removed. His biggest fear was that were this to happen, the council would be asked for the full amount in 2014 when the USDA loan was to have taken over. Within a week, it was stated, the authority would be at the ninety day mark for bid opening. The bids were only good for 120 days, and pushing the decision back another month would require rebidding. The project was an EPA mandate. When this was stated, Mr. Granahan responded that no one was arguing the project. There was a big difference however between a 3 year loan and a 40 year loan. Mr. Daly (MMA's solicitor) was supposed to be completed within eighteen months. The engineer stated that at this point the project was not meeting government requirements as to the timeline, and if it was not completed a significant fine could be incurred. The EPA was pressuring DEP, and if this didn't go ahead DEP would impose the fines. Mr. Lamont argued again against the assumption that the borough had an unlimited tax base. It was responded by one of the lawyers that there was legally no limit to the millage taxes could be raised for the purpose of paying a debt service. Mr. Reimel said that through his years on council there had been other incidents where the council hadn't wanted to do something but had been told that if they didn't go along with it the project wouldn't happen. He didn't like this situation any more than he had at the beginning, he said, but the point had been reached where a motion had to be put out. Mr. Granahan maintained that the bottom line was the borough signing off on paying 10 million dollars in 2014; Mr. Reimel clarified that this would only happen if USDA backed out. Mr. Granahan said that the other issue would be if the authority couldn't pay the USDA loan on their receivables, but called this a matter for a different time. Mr. Chamberlain asked where the MMA would go if USDA backed out; it was responded that they would go to Pennvest, though one MMA member quipped that they would go to jail. Mr. Granahan said that if USDA backed out there were a few options, the MMA could go to Pennvest, the bank could extend the loan to get their money back, or they could ask the borough to pay what had already been committed and bankrupt the borough. Mr. Reimel rebutted that they could also be bankrupted if they didn't pursue the project, as the government would require it be done one way or another. Ms. O'Malley said that as the borough's legal representative, she could not recommend that the borough sign any of these documents as they stood. The risk was just too great in her opinion. She asked why, if the borough did not have the money, they were being asked to sign for it. It was clarified that the bank was assuming the borough would tax its base for it. Mr. Carlucci said that this was not his fight, he was just the messenger. A visitor then asked why a representative of the bank wasn't present, and Ms. O'Malley said that they hadn't actually spoken with the bank. Mr. Granahan reiterated his feelings by stating that no one on council would cosign a loan for someone they didn't know could pay the loan back. Why, he wondered, should they be asked to do so on behalf of the tax base. It was argued that over the history of all of the loans that the borough had cosigned for the MMA, they had never been required to pay for them. Mr. Granahan maintained however that, aside from this fact or from the legal language, the borough was being asked to say that they had ten million dollars when they simply did not. Throughout the discussion Mr. Lamont also expressed displeasure with this, and discomfort over being asked to say that they did when they did not. Another heated discussion then ensued, as the MMA solicitation said that the borough had been asked to put their preferences in writing and never had done so, and Mr. Granahan rebutted that they had repeatedly said that what they wanted was to have the section taken out regarding the money they did not have. Mr. Daly said that they had been trying repeatedly to give borough council what they wanted, and kept being told that this wasn't what they wanted. Mr. Chamberlain said that he felt that if the MMA started looking for other funding they might find worse terms. A member of the MMA added that the contractors were getting anxious and might not stay with them for much longer. If there were fines for exceeding the timeline, it was also suggested, those too might revert back to the borough. The Bridgewater representative again referenced their inability to raise their rates, as they were having trouble meeting expenses already. He opined that the authorities ought to be merged, an opinion he had held for a while. Mr. Schuster asked if the bank could word the agreement such that the 10 million dollars would be extended for more than four years if the USDA were to back out, as this would give them time to look for other funding. Mr. Carlucci said that he could ask the question, and see how far the bank might be willing to go, although he felt certain they would go no longer than 20 years and would not set an interest rate. He offered to talk to them the next day, but it would be at least ten days before he had an answer to pass on. Mr. Granahan said that the reason he saw a risk with USDA was because these funds were ARRA funds, or stimulus money, otherwise he would agree that committed funds were likely to be stable. The MMA representative reiterated that the contractors might go away if the situation were postponed much longer. Mr. Reimel seemed to think that there needed to be a decision one way or the other, so he made a motion that they sign the agreement, though he quipped that the plant probably smelled better than the situation. Mr. Schuster said that he was tempted to second the motion because he didn't think it was going away, however he would like to see the debt extended beyond four years if the USDA money disappeared. If this were possible, he would happily pass the motion. Mr. Remeil offered to retract his motion if that was the only qualm people had. The various members addressed this question over the next several minutes. Mr. Lamont said that he was in agreement with Mr. Schuster, though as it stood even if the loan were drawn out to 20 years he would vote no due to the 10 million dollars. Mr. Granahan would not commit to a decision were the loan extendable, though the 20 years would give them time. If the loan could not be extended under any circumstances, however, he would vote against it. He did not think the borough was really going to be called for the entire amount, but the agreement was not friendly. Mr. Reimel said that he understood people's problems with the agreement, but the alternative scared him more. He said that he would not keep attending the meetings if something needed to be changed every month. In the end it was decided that the borough would hold a special meeting, to react to the bank's answer. It would try to be held by the fifteenth, as the authority had said they would make the second deadline with DEP by awarding the bids by the fifteenth. The meeting was scheduled for the 14th, though if no answer came from the bank by that time it would be a short meeting. A newspaper had reported that the 706 project was going through whether Montrose agreed or not. This was briefly discussed, supposedly a decision originating from PennDOT. The difficulty in reaching a lawyer from that agency was again mentioned. The borough had repeatedly been told that the project would not go through without borough approval, though according to the article they were going out to bid on the 14th regardless. It was suggested that the subject might be discussed more at the meeting later in the month. Council had decided that they would wait until the election to fill the two empty council positions, to ensure that the person selected was vested rather than appointing someone and having them lose the election.
Sea Scouts Receive National Recognition Each year since 2002 Boat US, the national voice of recreational boating, has awarded the Sea Scout Ship judged to have the best program in Sea Scouting the title of “Sea Scout Flagship.” This year, in addition to selecting the “Flagship,” Boat US selected four additional outstanding Sea Scout Ships and designated them the “Flagship Fleet.” Sea Scout Ship 90, the North Star of Delahanna District of the Baden-Powell Council, BSA is proud to have been named to this distinguished group and is equally proud that their active program would receive national attention.
Pictured (l-r) above, members of Sea Scout Ship 90: seated - Trinity Spencer, Destiny Sterling, Tiffany Spencer, Katelyn Grubb, Diana Stude, Katie Green, first mate Helen Reed; standing - chairman Joe Stude, skipper Charles W. Jaget, David Stude, Christian Chludzinski, Josh Warner, Austin Chludzinski, Chris Powers and commodore Ron Hall. The National Sea Scout Committee designed a uniform patch to be worn by the Sea Scouts in the newly created “Flagship Feet;” there will also be a special ensign (flag) available to Ship 90. Sea Scout Ship 90 dates back to 1943 in New Milford, PA. Currently it has a crew of 19 sea scouts. This summer they will canoe the white water of the upper Delaware River, sail for 9 days on 30-foot sailboats on Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, and sail on the 110-foot windjammer “Mystic Whaler” on Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean for four days and nights! Ship 90 is under the leadership of skipper Charles W. Jaget, first mate Helen Reed, chairman Joe Stude, skipper emeritus Ron Hall and a strong ship’s committee and their sponsor the Sea Scout Association. Christian Chludzinski serves as the ship’s bo-sun and is elected by the sea scouts.
News
|
Living
|
Sports
|
Schools
|
Churches
|
Ads
|
Events
Military | Columns | Ed/Op | Obits | Archive | Subscribe
|
