City of Scranton Council Responses | June 16, 2026

Council President Tom Schuster asked the following question(s):

• Council President Schuster wishes to notify the city that City Council made a formal Motion to ask the city administration meet with PA Ambulance, discuss possible proposals, and provide Council with a written list of concerns.
  • The Administration has already requested Fitch & Associates prepare a Request for Proposals with input from City Administration for ambulance/EMT services to ensure an open, fair, and transparent process. City Administration is in the process of forming a panel to evaluate proposals and conduct interviews with proposers. To that end, it could create an unfair advantage to meet with only one select proposer at this stage. Current needs and concerns will be outlined in the RFP to be issued.
• Mr. Schuster asked, per resident Joan Hodowanitz request, that the City’s Emergency Operations & Training Center will support other municipalities. He asked if the city would receive any kind of revenue from that support or do municipalities pay back by in kind services? Further, may the city please advise an update on the Serrenti Center and how it will be impacted by the new operations and training center?
  • The facility has two distinct components which are the EOC and the Training Center. The EOC will be utilized by the City of Scranton and may be set up to serve as a backup for Lackawanna County (discussions will be had once the project is further along). The Training Center would be available for regional use and the requirements on such use will be discussed further once the project is underway. Most likely, this will follow other regional training center use agreements and may have requirements on shared use set forth by any government grand funding that is secured. The goal is for the facility to be used to conduct recruit-level training and maintenance training for emergency services with a shared use for the CTCLC.
• Mr. Schuster asked, also per Ms. Hodowanitz inquiry, when ARPA ends this year, will ARPA require staffer in 2027 and beyond? How much money are the staffers projected to make?
  • Please see the question below regarding agenda item 5H.
• Mr. Schuster asked, per a residents’ request, that the city and pave cut inspector please visit and advise next steps to repair the large, uneven pave cut at N Main Avenue & Clearview Street. The sunken pave cut continues to cause motoring issues on this heavily travelled road.
  • This section of roadway is state-owned and maintained. The city will file a complaint with PennDOT.
• Council President Tom Schuster has kindly asked that Code Enforcement, SPD and DPW please address the issues at the corner of N Main Avenue & Clearview Street. The business is Frank Grippo & Son Auto Body at 1503 N Main Avenue. Council President Schuster asked that Tom Oleski assist due to the ongoing issues with this business and location. The claim of removal of no parking signage that was placed by the city may be addressed by DPW and SPD.
  • DPW replaced these signs in 2025 at the request of SPD Traffic Division. DPW previously replaced the sign only to have the signs removed. DPW will replace after SPD and Code Enforcement place a camera or another means to determine and cite the responsible parties removing the signs and channels that they are hung on.
• Mr. Schuster asked, per city motorists’ request, if the city may provide a completion date and timeline for completion of the Green Ridge Street bridge project?
  • The Green Ridge Street bridge project is expected to be open with its final traffic configuration in August.
• Mr. Schuster asked if the city is considering legislation regarding the limiting or banning ATV motorists in the city limits?
  • Legislation regarding ATV’s is already in place for both the state and the city. A copy of the legislation passed by Council on a split 4-1 vote on July 28, 2020.
• Regarding Euclid Avenue and the West Scranton Streetscape Project in the area, Mr. Schuster asked again if the administration may please answer did the city put in for a highway occupancy permit stating initially that it was going to be a one-way, or did PennDOT dictate that the street was going to be a one-way?
  • The obstructions to sight distance for vehicles entering Main Avenue from Euclid Avenue severely limits drivers’ ability to see traffic approaching from the left which represents a significant safety hazard and the recommendation to change the last block of Euclid Avenue to one way.
  • The project analysis did not study the accommodation of full-size semi-trailers since the neighborhood is residential and the entire street network west of Main Avenue in Tripps Park is not well suited to large truck traffic. We have since studied what provisions are needed for full-size semi-trailers to travel from Dorothy Street to the intersection of Main Avenue and Farr Street where there is adequate sight distance. Our traffic engineers are meeting with Mr. Emiliani to review the route and what minor modifications may be needed for some of the turns on the route. The administration is also meeting with Mr. Emiliani to review other city assistance with their long-term plans.
• Mr. Schuster asked what is the process in regard to the blight workers and instances where there is an obvious issue of blight, yet Code enforcement continues to deal with the matter? Does the property go through the blight coordinators? He states what is the process, so Council knows how to better address these issues.
  • The City has a two-person blight crew. Per their routine tasks, they clean the Lookout of trash daily as well as routinely clean graffiti there. They are responsible for 23 Land Bank properties as well as overgrowth of stop signs, sidewalks, fire hydrants, graffiti on power boxes, citizen complaints of dumping on streets or alleys, and maintaining the SPD shooting range. Tasks are provided to them by order of safety and urgency by the Parks Director depending on which new complaints came through and whether they come through the citizen complaint ticket, administration, or code enforcement request.
• Mr. Schuster asked if Council may be provided with the Parks Manager job description.
  • The job description is attached as a separate document
• Councilman Schuster asks what the status of the contract with Rudolph Clarke, LLC is, related to the HUP test. As the contract was put on hold and now out of date, may Council please have how much money was spent to the firm and how much is left on the contract? Mr. Schuster would like to know where the city stands as we move forward.
  • The contract is still active. Clarke Gallagher Barbiero Amuso & Glassman Law (formerly Rudolph Clarke, LLC) is paid hourly. Payments to CGBAG include:
    • FY 2024: $14,017.83
    • FY 2025: $2,920.00
    • FY 2026 YTD: $1,295.00
      • Total: $18,232.83
• Mr. Schuster advised the Scranton Environmental Advisory Council has been meeting in the City Hall activities room in basement of the building. He asked if they may be contacted and scheduled to meet in the Governor’s Room or City Council chambers , if needed.
  • They are welcomed to make arrangements for any of the public meeting spaces available in City Hall.
• Regarding 5H on the evening agenda, Mr. Schuster indicated the backup is missing the financial impact section. May the administration confirm five positions at ten hours each. May Council have an estimate of costs for the number of hours per the five positions until the end of the deadline of ARPA as well as the deadline for when the ARPA funds are completed? Further, as a comparable, there were two positions that were hired, and believe two individuals resigned. When it came to looking at the budget going into that year, positions were added, but it doesn’t seem that those positions were in the 2026 budget. So if they are in the 2026 budget, may the administration please clarify where they are at in the budget? And if they are not in the budget, can Council have the salaries of those two positions?
  • In regards to the ARPA staffing legislation, the two previous ARPA project managers have found permanent employment elsewhere. They earned $75,000 without benefits ($6,250 monthly) as contract employees funded entirely by ARPA funds and previously approved by council. The ARPA positions do not appear in the General Fund Budget as they are not funded by city dollars. The proposed legislation would allow for the 5 positions noted in the legislation to share the ARPA workload and the additional salary would be paid through ARPA funds. Collectively, all 5 positions monthly salary would not exceed $5,580 total. As referenced, the two previous ARPA project managers were paid collectively $12,500 monthly. While all ARPA projects must be completed by December 31, 2026, ARPA administration and close out is not completed until March 31, 2027
• Mr. Schuster relayed a resident’s concern about a pave cut issue near Leslie Drive
  • The Project Management Office is working with the utility that own the pave cut to arrange restoration. DPW will plate the cut until the utility remediates this cut. 

Council Vice President Patrick Flynn asked the following question(s):

• Mr. Flynn thanked the administration for the response regarding the Mulberry Street/Moosic Street legislation. He asked if the city may advise what is the priority allocation of the funds for the project, Mulberry Street or Moosic Street?
  • While both streets are priorities, since this is a federal application, it will take an extensive time for review and, if awarded, to actually receive funding. This process can take up to two years, so at this time no decision on which street will be pursued has been made. If awarded, conditions, data, availability of other funding sources and engineering recommendations will direct the project.
• Mr. Flynn also thanked the city for the update to 1021 Richmont Street, He asked if possibly the blight remediation crew may visit the property to clear the severely overgrown back yard. He also asked if the city engineer may visit the property to evaluate the safety related to the large, damaged back deck on the building. Code Enforcement previous cited and the front lawn was subsequently cleared, however, the back yard remains overgrown.
  • Code Enforcement has issued a QOL for the violations in the rear of the property.
• Mr. Flynn asked who within the city departments may review cable company lines in the city and who would respond to any issues. He reported complaints from residents advising cable wires hanging very low and not attached properly to poles.
  • As is standard practice, concerns/inquiries should be directed to 311. Depending on the nature of the issue/concern, staff will direct the request to the appropriate department.
• Councilman Patrick Flynn has asked if our DPW may assist in reviewing the infested tree at the front of 925 N Irving Avenue.
  • Titan Tree inspected the tree at 925 N Irving Ave. It is a Norway Maple (invasive). This tree is not outcompeting any native species in this situation. The tree appears to be health and does not show signs of infestation and seems to be very healthy.

Councilman Sean McAndrew asked the following question(s):

• Mr. McAndrew advised that, with the new members to City Council this year, the Council will invite PA Ambulance to a future caucus with Council to discuss possible proposals for the city.
  • See response above. The City Administration has already begun the process of issuing an RFP. The Administration is taking this approach to ensure that the process is open and transparent, and gives interested providers a fair, level playing field.
• Mr. McAndrew would like to request an update on where the city stands with the QRS services that the discussion is currently, how many individuals in the department this is going to take, what is the total estimated cost of that, as well as what is the total estimated cost of standing up a city ambulance service as well as a hybrid, if that is one of the possibilities or something in discussion.
  • Please see the attached letter that Chief Judge sent to Councilman McAndrew after their recent meeting where he extended his assistance with having conversations with county officials to work with the City on implementation. QRS requires no additional costs or personnel to the City of Scranton. The “hybrid model” that the Councilman asks about will require a cost. Chief Judge wants to be clear that EMS and QRS, while related, are two different programs. The hybrid cost analysis is ongoing, and Chief Judge will provide information once costs have been updated.
• Councilman McAndrew would like to invite a number of select representatives currently on the Unsheltered Task Force to a caucus with City Council for update and discussion.
  • This reads as an informative declaration. Has Councilman McAndrew identified the select representatives he wishes to invite?

City of Scranton Council Responses – June 16, 2026 | PDF

Letter from Chief Judge – Memo

Last modified: June 16, 2026