00:00A central topic of the meeting was the debate over whether the borough should allow residents to opt out of JCP&L’s smart meter program. One council member voiced firm opposition to offering an opt-out, arguing that the smart meters only collect basic electricity usage data and do not monitor personal activities. They stressed that the utility department is not interested in individual consumption patterns, acknowledging some concerns about data security but emphasizing the primary function of the meters is simply to report usage. The discussion touched on the potential implications of smart surveillance, suggesting that the term “smart” could be misconstrued as monitoring, though it was clarified that such concerns were unfounded.

02:39The council member also addressed plans for auditing internal processes related to water and sewer operations. This led to a broader discussion on public safety, with reports on a recent meeting involving the police chief and discussions on crossing guards, departmental restructuring, parking issues, and traffic flow.

01:58Another portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing property ownership matters raised by a resident identified as Weisenberger. He highlighted discrepancies in property descriptions on tax maps and historical records, which he claimed could lead to legal challenges. Weisenberger specifically pointed to concerns surrounding Block 8611 and questioned the ownership of the mill, pond, dam, and trestle, allegedly owned by an individual referred to as Mr. Burgerer. He urged the council to rectify historical record-keeping errors. He warned that without action, the borough could face shared financial responsibility for maintenance and dredging of these areas.

Weisenberger recommended that the council send relevant documents to John Foster at the Department of Environmental Protection for further investigation. He emphasized the complexities involved in correcting property records, noting the importance of presenting proper documentation to initiate changes. He referenced a specific error in a lot and block designation for the substation, which he believed highlighted ongoing historical inaccuracies. Weisenberger’s concerns extended to the potential financial ramifications for the borough if these issues remain unresolved, citing a court case involving the borough and former property owner John Golia over value disputes.

09:35The resident also presented historical photographs from the early 1900s, obtained from the historical society, to provide context for the properties being discussed. He asserted that these images could offer insights into past ownership and usage of the land.

04:02The meeting also covered several updates from the council members. Updates on the senior center included successful presentations and upcoming activities, such as bus trips to local restaurants and a nurse’s availability for appointments. Appreciation was extended to the Department of Public Works for their efforts in preparing the pool for summer usage, as well as for the positive reception of the bike and walking path construction that began on June 9. Discussions about the new recycling program highlighted the need for improved communication regarding manual labor issues on certain streets.

12:27Additionally, the council addressed the old Department of Public Works site, with one member calling for an end to treating the area as a junkyard and advocating for beautification efforts. The member questioned whether taxpayers would have confidence in the council’s stewardship if the visible area remained unkempt, sparking debate over potential rehabilitation projects and the feasibility of establishing a community center at the location.

10:48The dialogue also encompassed public access to board of education meetings, with council members emphasizing the importance of transparency and community engagement. Suggestions were made to explore televising board meetings and adjusting meeting schedules to facilitate attendance by council liaisons. A parent interjected, voicing concerns about the lack of communication regarding school operations and their impact on property values. This further underscored the need for enhanced public engagement and collaboration between the council, the board of education, and the community.