Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters raise concerns about county reassessment, utility rate hikes, city‑hall access and local bridge traffic
Summary
During citizen participation, residents urged council attention to county reassessment information sessions, urged action on UGI and Pennsylvania American Water rate hikes, criticized limited access to city hall and flagged traffic and safety problems on Elm Street Bridge and local roads.
A series of citizen comments at Scranton City Council covered multiple community concerns: county reassessment information sessions, utility rate increases (UGI and Pennsylvania American Water), city‑hall access and security, Elm Street Bridge traffic patterns and other neighborhood issues.
Several speakers urged residents to attend scheduled county reassessment information sessions hosted across Scranton and nearby school buildings; council members and commenters noted the sessions begin at 5 p.m. over multiple dates and encouraged public participation. One commenter described receiving a detailed presentation at Riverside Junior‑Senior High School and said the sessions are being recorded and posted to local government TV.
Utility-rate concerns were prominent. A public commenter urged the council to file a motion to intervene in utility rate cases and pointed to corporate profits and dividends at UGI, arguing that 73% of a proposed rate hike would fall on residential customers. The council confirmed it had filed a letter in the docket and that the Public Utility Commission had pushed investigations later in the year, giving time for additional action.
Other speakers criticized restricted public access to City Hall, calling the double doors and appointment‑only arrangements unwelcoming and urging the administration to consider legal and staffing changes, including presence of police detail at the front door or additional security screening. Speakers also raised concerns about Elm Street Bridge traffic-signal timing, lane markings and the sequencing of design studies done during COVID; the presenter asked for a list of studies, consultant costs and outcomes and said PennDOT and the project team had promised corrections.
Union and public-safety topics also appeared in public comment. Alan Lucas (Local 60) asked council to confirm whether the Fire Department backfilled apparatus when Engine 2 responded to a structure fire outside the city, and council members said they would forward the queries to administration and ask for documentation of mutual-aid and backfill plans.
Other public speakers mentioned community programs (Providence Pregnancy Center and St. Joseph Center services), demolition lists, pothole reporting (scrantonpotholes.com), and requests to inspect specific pave cuts and code-enforcement concerns. Council members repeatedly responded that some documentation is available online and that formal right-to-know requests may be needed for extensive records.
Council responses and next steps: council members said they had asked for follow-up information from administration, solicitors and engineers; they identified scheduled meetings, Right‑to‑Know as the route for large document requests, and told residents they would forward specific addresses and issues to appropriate departments.
