Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pils topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press council on PILOT listings and small homelessness/hunger line items

Scranton City Council · April 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public commenters and the council raised questions about a 14‑item PILOT listing that names the University of Scranton (173 properties) and several nonprofits; speakers asked why many nonprofits do not appear to be paying PILOTs and sought clarity on who controls small budget line items for homelessness and hunger initiatives.

Several public speakers at the April 21 meeting urged the council to scrutinize the city’s list of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) and to clarify administration control over small non‑departmental line items for homelessness and hunger.

Joan Hodowanitz told the council she reviewed the 2026 budget and found two non‑departmental line items—"homeless outreach initiative" and "hunger initiative"—each listed at $31,000 but with little or no recorded expenditures in 2025. "One thing I'd like to know is who controls those expenditures? Is it the task force? Or is it someone else within the administration?" Hodowanitz asked.

Council President Schuster and other members noted a PILOT list received about two weeks earlier showing 14 named recipients. Schuster highlighted large institution entries including the University of Scranton (listed with 173 properties), Lackawanna College and Geisinger and said the council should continue outreach to major property owners who do not appear to be contributing on the list.

Speakers suggested preparing a fuller inventory of nonprofits and other large property holders that might be appropriate PILOT candidates; council members and staff agreed to keep the conversation active and to follow up with the administration to clarify payment records, the source of the $31,000 line items and whether in‑kind services might explain apparent disparities.

Council did not vote on PILOT policy at the meeting. Members asked staff to provide additional detail on who authorizes expenditures for the two small initiatives and to share complete payment records for the listed PILOT recipients.