David Jaindl, president of Jaindl Land Company, and his land development manager, Howard Kutzler, agreed to look at an alternative plan for a walking path that raised concerns for residents at the Hills at Lockridge.

During the Feb. 11 Alburtis Borough Council meeting, resident Ted Miller asked council if they could reach out to Jaindl and Saylor’s Lawn & Landscape about snow removal. He explained there is “definitely a problem” with snow accumulation in the streets, adding it affects visibility, especially when residents do not move their cars off the streets. From there, Miller also inquired about the walking path, discussed at the Jan. 27 meeting.

Miller asked if council knows when Jaindl will complete the path, a plan in the works for 15 years.

“We’re paying taxes [to Alburtis] and we aren’t really getting too much benefit from our taxes,” he said.

Council asked if Kutzler, who attended the meeting, could talk to Saylor’s.

Kutzler replied they could “certainly” look into the snow removal issue and “circle back with staff [the next day].” As for the path, Kutzler explained that on his end, the remainder of work left on his list is primarily paperwork.

Council President Ron DeIaco shared the alternative pathway council previously discussed alongside Church Street. DeIaco acknowledged the revised plan would likely require tree removal.

“We have people that would like to have the trail and people that wouldn’t,” DeIaco said. “So, I guess that comes down to Mr. Jaindl and your crew.”

Miller then questioned the sudden change in plans.

Resident Matt Mumma, Miller’s neighbor, then chimed in to share his thoughts.

“I’m just curious as to why you or anybody would have an objection to the alternate route,” Mumma said. “It seems, on the surface, it would take less work to build an extension … instead of going through the open fields.”

Miller said most design plans have been followed in the past regardless of residents’ objections and added the proposed area has become an alleged dumping ground because “it’s a quick turnaround.”

Jaindl said his company is open to any viable alternatives.

“… If the county agrees with it and if it can be built outside of any waterway as well, we don’t object to any alternative,” Jaindl said. “If the alternative is accepted by the borough and is going to satisfy objecting residents, we don’t have a problem with that.”

Given Jaindl’s response, council member Hector Vasquez proposed council move forward with pursuing the proposed alternate route.

“I see no harm in trying to move forward with the alternative and see if that would continue to be a possibility and try to go down that route and see what changes or alterations we would have to make before we make assumptions about what can’t happen,” Vasquez said. “There’s too many unknowns. Let’s take his recommendations, move forward with that alternate route and address concerns when they arise.”

Council member John Aleszczyk countered, voicing concerns about potential costs and Kaufman agreed.

“You can eyeball it and say ‘well, maybe you can fit a path there or not,’ but you really need to get an engineer in there to develop the plans,” Kaufman said. “Now you’re looking at $10,000 – I’m just guessing. I think it gets real complicated real quickly ... as opposed to the current plan. I understand some people don’t want a path right behind their house, but it’s been in the plan for 15 years and as Mr. Miller said, just for the sake of consistency, we should kind of go through with the plan.”

Vasquez acknowledged Kaufman’s point, but felt the borough “owes” the residents in the area to look into a possible alternative.

“We also need to look at the other side of the token as well,” Vasquez said. “Considering the majority of the residents in that area have been contributing in taxes toward the borough and really haven’t been benefiting until the property is turned over to the borough, I think we do kind of owe them to look into this a little bit further ... especially having the approval from David Jaindl.”

However, Kaufman felt not enough residents voiced an opposition to the plan for council to thoroughly search for an alternative.

“If we had like 200 residents here who all hated it, definitely we would want to take a look at it,” Kaufman said. “Not to minimize Mr. Mumma’s concerns – we only have two or three residents who are against it. It doesn’t seem to me enough of a groundswell of opposition to open the books on this. We were just talking about closing the books on this; we were only a month or two away.”

Mumma then shared six residents oppose the plan. He added he understands the concerns about costs, and while he is not an engineer, the alternative appears to be less work than the current plan.

Jaindl explained he sees the alternative route “does make some sense.” To alleviate financial concerns, he proposed as long as council authorizes the borough engineer to work with the company, if additional design is required, Jaindl would “foot the bill,” but first requires the county to accept the alternate route.

He also suggested Borough Manager Sharon Trexler submit the alternative plan to the county for approval so they can move forward with design as soon as possible. DeIaco directed her to do so.

In other news, council discussed solutions for illegal dumping through the pump station over the past few meetings. Trexler said she is waiting for estimates.

“We might be able to supply the parts and they do the work,” Trexler said. “They’re pretty sure we’ll work something out. Once I meet with [the borough engineer] next week I’ll let you know what’s going on.”

Trexler also informed council she contacted J.P. Mascaro regarding late garbage pickup.

“The last two weeks have been really good,” she said.

Palmer agreed, noting she saw no missed garbage when she surveyed the neighborhood.

“Evidently, the letter has had a result,” DeIaco said.