The York City Council voted on Resolution 91 to affirm planning commission recommendations and allow the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) to subdivide property on Hope and Green Street from 14 lots into 20 parcels, a step RDA officials said is intended to ready the land for future affordable housing development.

Todd Curl of RGS Associates told council the item is a geometric subdivision seeking waivers from street width and sight-distance requirements and that architectural design remains schematic. Blandon Ace (Redevelopment Authority) and RGS said the work is paid for by the RDA to make the parcels marketable and that vertical construction and financing would come later.

The procedural and legal status of ARPA funding tied to the original project became the meeting’s central contested point. Michael Walker and other public speakers argued the administration’s December correspondence declaring the full project “not viable” and canceling the related RFP raised a potential conflict with the U.S. Treasury and Pennsylvania’s rules for ARPA deallocation. They urged the council to await clarification from the State Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) before proceeding.

Mayor Helford and the business administrator responded that ARPA grant funding had been determined not to support the project in its prior form and that reallocation or reallocation guidance from ARPA consultants and counsel had been followed; city staff said reallocations of unspent ARPA funds are permitted under recent Treasury guidance when done to existing eligible line items. Foursquares Development representative Fred Walker said the developer had invested significant funds in the project and contended the project historically had been tied to his company.

Council members debated whether the subdivision action is legally separable from ARPA allocations and the canceled RFP. Supporters, including the RDA and some council members, argued that subdividing the land is an owner action to prepare the property for future transactions and is distinct from vertical construction or ARPA-funded activities. Opponents and some public commenters warned that moving forward without DCED clarity could expose the city to audit risk if federal/state reallocation rules were later found to have been violated.

After public comment and discussion, council completed roll call on Resolution 91; the council recorded votes and the item moved forward. The RDA representatives said their intent is to use the subdivision to enable future affordable housing development, but any reallocation of ARPA dollars or funding for vertical construction would require separate council votes and additional documentation.

The council’s action: the subdivision waivers were advanced as the RDA requested; further funding and contractual decisions were left to future, separate actions.