Public commenter flags missing police contract and expired DPW labor agreement; councilors request salt-transfer and litigation cost details
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Public commenter Joan Hoduanas urged the council to clarify an amended rule about requests to counsel and said the city’s online labor documents are missing the current police contract; councilors asked staff to explain three budget transfers for salt (about $77,000 total), provide litigation cost data related to labor and the DBW contract, and follow up on street repairs and financial projections.
A public commenter and multiple council members used the meeting to press the administration for information on contract and budget matters.
Joan Hoduanas told the council she had reviewed amended rules of council and raised a concern about a provision requiring written requests to counsel during citizens' participation: "any person who requests information from counsel during citizens' participation shall do so in writing and shall include the name of the person making the request." Hoduanas said she had given a written copy of her questions to Kathy (counsel) but asked whether simple questions could still be answered verbally.
Hoduanas also asked about labor negotiations at the Department of Public Works, saying "Their contract is now over has expired more than 1 year ago," and asked whether negotiations were headed toward arbitration and whether a new DPW director had been named. She told the council that Scranton's online document library of labor agreements lacked "the most current contract for the police" and asked that IT upload missing files.
Council member Sean McKandridge requested information on litigation spending connected with employee and labor agreements for 2024–2025 and asked for the cost of litigation tied to the DBW contract, saying he would submit formal information requests and asked staff to provide numbers. City administration agreed to supply the requested information.
Councilors also asked for clarification on recent budget transfers listed in the agenda: two transfers of $50,000 and $20,000 and an additional $7,000 described in the packet as related to salt purchases. A councilor asked for the size of the city’s current salt shed and whether the second location proposed in the capital budget would proceed. City administration replied that staff would look into the transfers and the salt-shed question.
Separately, a councilor raised lingering road issues on Jackson Street and a subsided pave cut crossing Flume/Forest Glen and asked staff to identify the responsible party and arrange remediation. Another councilor asked staff to request projection horizons from the city’s financial advisers, PFM, and to schedule a caucus with counsel to review fiscal projections; administration agreed to follow up.
The meeting closed after routine introductions and announcements; no formal votes were taken on the topics above and councilors directed staff to report back.