Trending
The ongoing debate regarding the fate of our current City Hall building has sparked fervent discussions among City Council members and the general public. Unfortunately, emotions and misinformation have clouded the discourse on this crucial matter. Our decision must be grounded in facts and a realistic assessment of our city's financial condition. City Council has been, and will continue to be, fully informed of all the facts relating to this issue.
In early 2020, an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit was filed against the city in federal court. We hired a professional ADA consultant to inspect our city buildings and provide a report on what would be needed to bring city buildings into compliance with ADA requirements. In the executive summary, the ADA professional states, "In our opinion, the City Hall building would have to undergo a very large investment in remediation projects with marginal outcomes for better accessibility." Due to the lack of accessibility in City Hall, City Council made the decision to move their meetings to Trade and Transit II at the end of January 2020.
Over past administrations, City Hall has received little to no preventative maintenance, despite thousands of dollars invested in studies for City Hall. After the studies were completed, the city implemented very few of the recommendations. At best, there were minimal band-aids applied. Only a portion of the roof was replaced. A two-foot piece of pipe was cut out of the walls. Drywall was turned backwards to try to make it last longer. None of these "fixes" were the long-term repairs City Hall needed. As the years went by, the issues became worse and the cost to fix them continued to increase. We had two major water incidents occur inside of City Hall, one in July 2021 and then in December 2021. After the July incident, I made the decision to move everyone out of City Hall for health and safety reasons.
Why were the repairs not made? Why were the recommendations not followed? What happened to the money allocated in the City Hall operating line item in our city budget? The city has always paid itself rent that was supposed to go towards the upkeep and maintenance of City Hall. However, as I am sure most are aware at this point, the previous administration is under a state and federal investigation related to their handling of city finances. One of our auditors has said our city finances were "fraudulently spent." We do not know how or where the tax dollars were used, but it is clear they were not used to maintain City Hall.
Taxpayers should note that since moving out of City Hall, it is actually costing us less in rent than operating a 40,000 square foot building that was never conducive for efficient government offices. For one thing, as stated in the Department of Homeland Security Report, it is not normal for the public to be able to walk directly through a police department. It is an extreme public safety risk and concern. With the police removed from City Hall, that leaves a 40,000 square foot building to house approximately 25 employees. This is not a smart use of tax dollars.
During my tenure of over three and a half years, we have diligently collaborated with various authorities, including the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, the Pennsylvania State Attorney General's Office, the River Valley Transit Authority, and city auditors to unravel the city's financial intricacies and stabilize our finances. While significant progress has been made, our financial balance has not been audited since 2018. Our current auditing consultant is scheduled to present the rectified 2019 audit at the upcoming City Council meeting on September 28.
Our state and federal consultants have been clear that the likelihood that the city would receive millions of dollars in competitive grants to make the necessary repairs to City Hall and bring it into ADA compliance is very slim. Most, if not all, of the grants would require a financial match from the city that would likely be millions of dollars.
Our city was put in an extremely difficult situation with the gross misappropriation, fraud, and comingling of money by the previous administration. It leaves us with two options - move on from City Hall or raise city taxes significantly for many years to come to fund the millions of dollars in required repairs. In 1977, when we took over this building from the U.S. Postal Service, the city was looking for a newer, more efficient building. The same can be said for us now in 2023.
To formulate a long-term plan, we must know where the city stands financially. It is time to look for a building that can affordably be made ADA compliant and be more flexible to our modern needs. This is the least expensive and most cost-effective path forward. In the meantime, the prudent but short-term plan is to remain where we are.
Derek Slaughter is the mayor of Williamsport.