Residents press borough on Creek and Ravine Street repairs amid grant, ownership disputes

Residents of Creek and Ravine streets described a history of collapsed walls, dumped concrete slabs and incomplete creek maintenance at Monroe Borough’s June 17 meeting, pressing council for clarity on which repairs the borough will undertake and which remain the property owners’ responsibilities.

Jim Dudash, 1026 Creek Street, and other residents said contractors had worked in the creek without clear permits or property‑owner consent and that debris and collapsed concrete slabs upstream have diverted water and undermined downstream walls. Dudash said, “What we're looking for is the promise of it's going to happen. The hill is going to be fixed.”

A solicitor who addressed the council during public comment said the borough had pursued a county grant intended to repair a private road and that the county or grantor had asked that the borough accept the road as a borough street—if property owners consent—before the funds could be retained. The solicitor explained that converting the road to borough ownership would require engineering surveys, deeds and property owner consents and that the borough could be obligated to maintain the road “forever” if it accepted the transfer.

Why it matters: Residents described safety and property‑damage concerns, including a portion of driveway lost when a wall failed and the continued presence of “tandem load” concrete slabs in the creek. They said the delays imperil property and may jeopardize grant funds if project timelines lapse.

Regulatory and contractor questions: Residents asked for the names of contractors and drillers who worked on and near private properties and for borough staff to provide those names to DEP and conservation officials. A resident said she had been told by a state contact (named in testimony) that responsibility for cleaning waterways lies with property owners but also urged the borough to press for action. The borough engineer confirmed he had reached out to the contractor on available work and cited scheduling and equipment issues delaying some work.

Council response and constraints: Borough staff said the solicitor and engineer had discussed the matter in executive session and that legal complexity and DEP permitting mean officials cannot promise immediate action. Council and staff said they need surveys and formal property consents to accept a private street under the county grant and must consult with DEP on any in‑stream work.

What remains unresolved: Residents asked the borough to provide contractor names and the survey required for property owner consent; borough staff committed to following up. No formal vote to accept the road or to sign grant documents was recorded on June 17.