City of Scranton Council Responses | September 8, 2026

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

• Mr. Schuster, Mr. Flynn and the Council agreed that the original legislation in 2023 related to the Euclid Avenue project grant application involved cutting back trees, sidewalks and period lighting. The legislation that council passed at the time did not include a one-way street. They ask how the highway occupancy permit and one-way street was determined as both City and PennDOT advise the other party applied or mandated the one-way street designation. Was this a proactive PennDOT saying this has to be a one-way or was PennDOT just approving or denying the plans set forth as a one-way plan by the city?
  • This has been referred to the City engineers. Council is reminded that there was a study done by Reilly Associates that recommended one way due to the unsafe condition of traffic exiting Euclid onto Main Avenue. Main Avenue’s sight distance is limited by the bridge piers looking to the left from Euclid Avenue. The added unsafe condition is that the northbound traffic on Main Avenue queuing at the expressway ramp traffic signal backs up significantly beyond the intersection of Euclid Ave. There is safer alternate access to Main Street at Farr Street that has adequate sight distance and is not in the middle of the typical queue at the traffic signal. When doing the design for the gateway pedestrian safety project, the intersection safety issue was identified and addressed. 
    
    After the project was under construction, we were made aware of the difficultly that large trucks have in moving through the neighborhood from a trucking company parking area next to the entrance to the Isaac Tripp Elementary School.
    Based on our recent observations during construction we would also add minor curb changes and added signage on Euclid eastbound at the intersection of Dorothy Street to discourage traffic inadvertently traveling the last block of Euclid Ave. toward the intersection of Main Ave.
    
    The city also received a petition dated May 6, 2026, from approximately 60 residents of the immediate area requesting that Dorothy Street including the first block of Euclid off Main Avenue be made one way westbound up to Everett Street and Farr Street be made one way toward Main Avenue. The reason for the request based on conversation with the residents is a combination of the unsafe exiting from Euclid Ave. onto Main Ave. and the heavy traffic to and from Isaac Tripp Elementary School at Everett and Dorothy.
• Mr. Schuster asked who will be maintaining the grass areas between the sidewalk and curbing on the West Scranton Gateway project?
  • The property belongs to the Scranton Redevelopment Authority, and the City has always been responsible for maintaining it.

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

• Mr. Flynn asked a question regarding paving of courts/alleys in the city and the rationale in prioritizing the paving of these courts; he had been advised that the city DPW was paving alleys in South Scranton after they completed their project in Nay Aug Park. He asked if the city prioritizes paving of courts based on requests via 311, etc.
  • The rationale for paving courts was based on both 311 complaints and site assessments performed by DPW. The only court that has received patch work paving to date is Donnelly Court in South Side. The unit block of Donnelly was so deteriorated that it seemed the best location to start. There are also courts identified in West Side from 311 data and DPW review. DPW is not equipped to pave anything wider than a court because we have a small paver designed for light work, such as driveways, and we don’t have a milling machine. We attach a small milling unit to our bobcat. Our capabilities are limited to small projects due to time, equipment, and manpower limitations. Paving projects take a minimum of 12 workers comprised of operators, chauffers, and repairmen, and are slow-moving projects.

Council Member Dr. Jessica Rothchild asked the following question(s):

• Regarding Item 5B on the evening agenda, Dr. Rothchild asked that the city, City Engineer and SPD conduct a traffic study for the present road and current status of Euclid Avenue.
  • Please see the answer to the first question in these responses for information on existing traffic studies.
• Regarding Item 5M on the evening legislation related to purchase, fabrication, and installation of neighborhood welcome signage; what are the neighborhoods as there is a large amount of neighborhood and debate regarding neighborhood designation and names. She asked if there were information on what the signs would look like and if locations have been identified for placement.
  • Initial neighborhood signs are planned for Minooka, East Scranton, South Scranton, Hill Section, Pine Brook, The Plot, Tripp Park, Green Ridge, North Scranton, and Bullshead. Signs are tentatively planned for West Mountain and Keyser Valley. Additional signage will be pursued as funding allows.
    Signs are proposed to have carved lettering and are planned to be similar in size, color, and material to the sign installed at the recently renamed Tony Walsh Park in North Scranton.

Councilman Sean McAndrew asked the following question(s):

• When the RFP is placed regarding an EMS service is decided, may the administration advise the timeframe for companies to submit (30, 60, 90 Days) and what would be the turnaround time on a decision?
  • The City is finalizing the RFP now, and we expect proposers to have between 30 and 45 days to submit their proposals.
• Mr. McAndrew asked if City Council may have an update on all open litigation and costs to the city. He indicated the last update was in February and thanked the law department in advance.
  • The Law Department is preparing an update.
• Regarding ATV and enforcement in the city, Mr. McAndrew asked if SPD Chief Carroll may provide in writing how many tickets were issued to date for ATV, and also electric bike, violations.
  • This request cannot be quantified at this time, but year-to-date SPD has 3,421 traffic enforcement actions, including those associated with ATV and e-bike violations.
• Regarding the water main break in the city and press conference by the mayor, Mr. McAndrew asked if what businesses or downtown residents responded to the request for how they were affected and how the city may assist those affected by the break and the lack of water that followed.
  • Nineteen businesses and seven residents responded to the city survey. That information was compiled and sent to DCED and PAWC on August 10 for potential funding opportunities. The PAWC has informed us a number of these entities have applied through the PAWC portal and will be compensated once eligibility has been established.
• Mr. McAndrew again asked, per his request at the City Council caucus with Parks & Rec on July 21st, if Council may have the written response from SPD Chief Thomas Carroll referencing his review and decision on denial for the Showboat use by the benefit party during the FIFA weekend?
  • The question was asked and answered during the caucus.

Councilman Mark McAndrew asked the following question(s):

• Mr. McAndrew, along with other City Council members, ask why residential and commercial properties are not designated in police reports as nuisance properties and labeled as same. He asked if SPD Chief Carroll may review and provide a listing of police calls to properties actually designated as nuisance calls and what are any recent police calls where nuisance designation was used in a report.

Per Chief Carroll:
There were irresponsible statements made by City Council members on September 1, 2026. They are dangerous and can undermine the credibility of the police department with its citizens. Furthermore, to say that we shouldn’t always have to rely on the DA misrepresents the relationship between the police department and the District Attorney’s Office and the time-tested process for addressing nuisance businesses. I present the following facts to correct the record.
The District Attorney’s Office and the Scranton Police Department collaborate on nuisance businesses. The City ordinance does not authorize the City to condemn a business for 3 nuisance calls ( https://ecode360.com/29553410 ). The police department primarily handles calls for service and conducts investigations as required, and if warranted, criminal charges are presented to the DA’s Office for prosecution on a case-by-case basis. Many times, SPD works concurrently or collaboratively with our law enforcement partners like Liquor Control Enforcement | State Police | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for instance, who specialize in liquor law. This is not “punting the issue”.
When the District Attorney’s Office determines that action is appropriate, they will petition the court for an injunction to halt a business from operating. Police department records will be evidence in that civil process. Police always rely on the DA in these matters

Examples:

• DA seeks to shut down nuisance bar in West Scranton 2026 
• Blue Face Hookah Lounge permanently closed – Scranton Times-Tribune 2024 
• Court hearing rescheduled on shutdown of Diamond Club property in Old Forge – Scranton Times-Tribune 2024 
• Judge orders tire shop to close for year following drug raid – Scranton Times-Tribune 2022
• Lackawanna County Judge Orders Castle Club to Close | wnep.com 2019 
• Rocky’s Lounge in Scranton agrees to close for six months – Scranton Times-Tribune 2019

Councilman Mark McAndrew, the Public Safety Chair, made outlandish and accusatory statements about the word “nuisance” and its supposed requirement in police reports. Although I am confident people won’t accept this claim, I will address it for clarity. According to him, he was misinformed from the beginning of his tenure on the nuisance subject and now years later he is passing it along publicly ( Scranton City Council 9-1–26 ). To be clear, there is no requirement for the word “nuisance” to appear in a police report. There never was and there never will be such a requirement. His accusation of management interference related to “nuisance” terminology is therefore unfounded and requires no further response.

Lastly, the dedicated members of the Scranton Police Department remain attentive to the needs of our citizens and will continue to do so. While we recognize that we may not always satisfy every citizen or Council member, we do expect City Council to refrain from publicly undermining the police department and to treat us professionally, even when the cameras are on.

• Councilman McAndrew received numerous complaints from approximately 25 women with the Zipper Club who use the indoor pool at Weston Field for rehab, recreation and social reasons advise that their availability to use the pool has been reduced to just three days per week. They previously had availability Monday thru Friday from 9:00 to 11:00. Mr. McAndrew and the members ask what the rationale and justification for the change was. He further indicated that the members are residents, taxpayers, and pay membership.
  • We are expanding our aquatic offerings to include lap swimmers on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The community has expressed their wish to have that opportunity, and we listened. Those that do their aerobics will have full use of the shallow end of the pool and its edges for stability on their days and the time they prefer, and those that wish to swim laps will now have their lane days and the time they prefer. We are following similar schedules of the YMCA and the JCC. More offerings to come to continue to bring all taxpayers and membership holders a fair experience.

City of Scranton Council Responses – September 8, 2026 | PDF

Last modified: September 8, 2026