Taxes to Stay the Same; Sparks Fly Over Bicycle Enforcement

In a sometimes fiery meeting that lasted over three hours, Swarthmore Borough Council voted on Monday not to raise taxes in 2021.

Members spent the majority of the meeting discussing what adjustments, if any, to make to the proposed 2021 budget. At the finance committee meeting on December 2, committee members significantly changed their proposals in response to feedback from previous council meetings. Among the alterations were reducing funding for environmental initiatives and the street tree program. Ultimately, some adjustments were made to environmental proposals, while the street tree program was left intact.

The Environmental Advisory Council had made three requests requiring additional funding in 2021:purchasing locally sourced Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), buying renewable natural gas, and installing solar panels on Swarthmore Borough Hall. The finance committee approved the solar panel request — which will be funded from the borough’s capital fund, not the operating budget — but rejected the other two items. 

The finance committee also proposed reducing the borough’s street tree subsidy. Currently, Swarthmore residents who use the borough’s tree service and agree to plant a replacement tree pay only 60% of the cost of the removal and the replacement tree, with the borough subsidizing the remaining 40%. The finance committee had suggested reducing its subsidy from 40% to 30% of the cost.

Public Support 

Several borough residents attended the meeting to support programs they did not want to see cut. 

“I’ve been teaching about climate change since the middle of the 1990s, and it is extraordinarily serious,” said Ruth Gordon. “We have a real obligation to the people who come after us. Our children and grandchildren.” Gordon said she would not usually support a tax increase, but “if it’s a choice between [taxes] and the climate, I’m for the climate.”

Charles Cresson, a member of Swarthmore’s tree committee, said the street tree program is a valuable community resource and called the council funding critical. 

Environment committee chair Lauren McKinney spoke passionately in support of all of the environmental initiatives. “I urge us to take a step back and look at our priorities. The purchase of renewable gas and renewable energy move us toward the Ready for 100 goal that we signed and that we support,” McKinney said. “I think it’s ethically imperative that we follow through on these requests.” She called the environmental initiative requests a “drop in the bucket” compared to the overall budget.

McKinney also scrutinized some of the larger expenditures included in the budget, questioning whether Swarthmore needs its own police and fire departments. “We can’t  afford sacred cows, of which we have two,” she said. 

No Tax Increase 

After hearing the impassioned feedback from McKinney and members of the public, council voted to advertise the finance committee’s budget proposal with one amendment. To keep renewable natural gas in the budget, they took $700 away from the purchase of non-locally sourced RECs wind energy and used $1,300 from the general fund reserves. The vote was 5 to 2, with Jill Gaieski and Betsy Larsen voting no. 

Council then voted to advertise the 2021 tax ordinance with no tax increase. The vote was 6 to 1, with Betsy Larsen voting no. Larsen argued at length that the tax increase would be nominal, and was not in favor of taking the money out of the general fund reserves.

Furor and Accusations Over Bicycles 

The most contentious part of the meeting was ushered in by general government committee chair Sarah Graden’s report on the increasing nuisance of bicycles in the business district. Business owners have complained that cyclists are riding down the Park Avenue sidewalk with little regard for pedestrians and leaving their bikes obstructing the sidewalk, she said. 

Police Chief Ray Stufflet pointed out that Swarthmore has an ordinance prohibiting riding bicycles on the sidewalk in the business district, and said that police have increased patrols in the area to ameliorate the issue.

Larsen asked for a copy of this ordinance. She reported that her son was recently approached by the police for loitering, and she recommended that the ordinance be better publicized. She also said “the optics” of the increased police presence in the business district could be a problem for the borough. 

The meeting then took a dramatic turn when Larsen claimed that she had heard concerns from residents that Gaieski, a co-owner of a Park Avenue restaurant and the chair of the borough’s public safety committee, is responsible for the increased police presence. Larsen said there is a perception that police, acting in direct response to concerns of Gaieski and her business, are taking “enforcement actions that have not ever been previously taken.” 

Larsen’s comments were followed by a flurry of passionate responses. Mayor Marty Spiegel stated that he, not Gaieski, had asked for increased police presence to help with the bicycle issue. Gaieski said that she felt personally attacked and was disappointed that Larsen had chosen to address this matter publicly. “This is very unprofessional,” she said. 

Larsen stood by her statement, insisting that some residents believe the police are in Gaieski’s “pocket,” a charge Gaieski angrily denied.

Council president Mary Walk interjected, “We are all elected officials. We do not have to always agree on anything. I have never seen anything like these personal attacks on people in this last year I have served on council. I would just ask all of you to try to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.” 

Support for the Fire Department

Mayor Marty Spiegel asked that the public support the fire company, which was forced to cancel its Christmas tree sale this year due to frost. The tree sale usually brings in a significant amount of money for the company each year. “We’re depending on the public to step up and help make up the difference in what they would normally have taken in from selling the trees,” he said. 

Spiegel expressed disappointment that the return on donation requests from the fire company is usually only between 20% and 25%. He said, “I’m asking that people pay attention to what the fire company is asking for, because one day you may need to ask something of them.”