Council President Tom Schuster asked the following question(s):
- Mr. Schuster noted that the line item in the 2026 budget has been raised $58K in addition to a line-item increase of $5K for St. Cats & Dogs. He asked that Council please have an update or progress report from St. Cats & Dogs? He also asked for a status on the usage for the Ash Street property used by the organization.
- The City has requested an update from St. Cats & Dogs.
- Revisiting the legislation related to the 3100 Block of Cedar Avenue, Mr. Schuster asked additional questions. The Davis Street Apartment project has a five-year permit for the project. Do we know when the developer will be breaking ground and who put in the condition of the one-way street being part of the permitting process?
- No permits or plans for this project have come to the city for review. The project is pending the one-way ordinance being passed by council, which was a condition of the planning commission (see attached minutes). The developer has a 5-year approval from the planning commission to build. This has nothing to do with permits. Without the ordinance passing the project cannot move forward.
Council member Dr. Jessica Rothchild asked the following question(s):
- Dr. Rothchild and Council received information at meeting from Mrs. Elaine Donnelly, resident of East Mountain, claiming large amounts of trees are being cut down on private lots in the Upper East Mountain area. She would like to discuss with Mr. Tony Santoli and the Shade Tree Commission in addition to Don King, City Planner, regarding requirements or controls regulating the mass cutdown of trees on the mountain.
- The Shade Tree Commission does not enforce tree cutting on private property. They only regulate City rights-of-way or City-owned properties. There is no prohibition of a private owner removing trees from their property. The City provides some funding annually in low-to-moderate income areas for individuals who have a problem tree on their property. Owners must meet income thresholds for funding.
- Dr. Rothchild commended the city on the Robinson Park project. She asked if the Parks & Recreation Director may address two issues found on her visits to the park with her children.
- There is a drain near the park building that is surrounded by gravel. Large amounts of the gravel get kicked onto the playground area, lodging in the equipment and play area. Neighbors and visitors to the park attempt to sweep or blow back the gravel, however, much remains in the area.
- The area under the swings is worn down to a deep drop off causing unstable footing and can be a safety issue.
- Council member Rothchild further asked if a baby swing may be placed on one of the swing sets, similar to what are found on some playground swing sets?
- Parks workers regularly rake the playground mulch back into place. Additionally, every spring we add new playground mulch. We are expecting a delivery next week to Robinson Park.
- As far as the pebbles, they are there for drainage. It is unfortunate that kids are throwing them and running through them. Our Parks workers also blow that back on a daily basis. We are exploring some edging options to keep the rocks in place and are hopeful parents will watch their children better.
- We are also exploring baby swing feasibility as the couplings at the top would also have to change to accommodate this.
Councilman Sean McAndrew asked the following question(s):
- Regarding the HUP test, Mr. McAndrew was provided with a copy of the contract with Rudolph Clarke, LLC and the adopted legislation. Mr. McAndrew asked if the city administration may provide a breakdown of the cost of the project or the costs to date for what we paid the lawyers.
- A summary of invoices is attached as a supporting document.
- Regarding the Fawnwood pipe project discussed this week, Sean asked if may Council have a breakdown of the quote for the cost of $100,000 plus engineering costs and easement settlement?
Option 1 – Extend Head wall 40-Feet
| Item No. | Description | Change Qty | UOM | Unit $ | Extd $ |
| 57 | 60″ SLCPP PIPE, SHORE/TRENCH BOX | 40 | LF | $355.00 | $14,200.00 |
| TOTAL: | $14,200.00 |
Option 2 – Extend 60″ SLCPP from HW-131A to EW-129, TYPE 6 & TYPE 8 BOXES
| Item No. | Description | Change Qty | UOM | Unit $ | Extd $ |
| 1 | Re-Mob, Additional Survey & Structure Delivery | 1 | LS | $7,500.00 | $7,500.00 |
| 4 | Inlet Protection, Filter Bag | 2 | EA | $500.00 | $1,000.00 |
| 15 | TYPE M INLET – 8′ BOX, 8′-16′ DEPTH | 1 | EA | $31,400.00 | $31,400.00 |
| 25 | VEGETATIVE SWALE | 375 | SY | $5.00 | $1,875.00 |
| 52 | TYPE DW ENDWALL/HEADWALL; 48-60″ | -2 | EA | $11,500.00 | <$23,000.00> |
| 56 | TYPE M INLET – TYPE 6 BOX, 8′-16′ DEPTH | 1 | EA | $26,700.00 | $26,700.00 |
| 56 | 60″ SLCPP PIPE, SHORE/TRENCH BOX | 205 | LF | $355.00 | $72,775.00 |
| TOTAL: | $118,250.00 |
Engineering/Inspectors On-Site for the Additional 4-5 Weeks: Approx. $20,000.00
Easement: $4,000.00
Estimated Total: $156,450.00
- Mr. McAndrew asked, per a resident of the 500 Block of Lackawanna Avenue, if the contractor or city may place signs indicating the crosswalks on the busy block. The complaint from a resident of that block is found in the attached email message.
- The City engineer is developing the solution for the crosswalk in the 500 block of Lackawanna Avenue and appropriate sign patterns.
Councilman Mark McAndrew asked the following question(s):
- Councilman McAndrew, in addition to Council President Schuster, asked that Council be provided with clarification on the city gift cards program. How many gift cards have been passed out to date, and how many are left to be passed out in the May 2026 project.
- We have 63 gift cards left over from the initial 75 we started with. Twelve gift cards have been passed out to 6 households; each household received 2 gift cards valued at $25 each for a total of $50.
City of Scranton Council Responses – May 12, 2026 | PDF
Last modified: May 11, 2026
