The park at 4th and Emerald streets is slated to receive two trees.
Harrisburg may be a step closer to fixing its two city pools, which have struggled for years to open on time and stay open all summer.
Last night, City Council approved a measure to examine the feasibility of renovating its existing pools or constructing a new one. Council approved other measures for city parks, too, including planting trees at four parks, and a police contract.
The city will begin the pool feasibility study after checking that former Mayor Linda Thompson’s administration did not already conduct a similar study. Parks and Recreation Chair Destini Hodges added an amendment that the administration will search for the previous study before the June 6 council meeting.
Mayor Eric Papenfuse said it’s possible that the previous administration conducted a similar study, adding that current city officials did not know of any study. Papenfuse and Council President Wanda Williams both said they would ask the previous administration about the existence of a prior study.
The pools, built in the 1960s, have experienced maintenance issues that have caused closures or delayed openings in the past ten years. This year, both pools will open mid-June.
In other action, four parks are slated to receive a total of 25 trees after council approved a $3,750 grant from TreeVitalize, a program established by the state to increase urban canopies. The trees will be planted in Riverfront Park and in parks at 4th and Emerald streets, 19th and Forster streets and 7th and Radnor streets.
In a 5-2 vote, Council also approved a new labor agreement with the Bureau of Police. In March, the administration and police officers’ union negotiated a contract designed to encourage young officers to stick with Harrisburg’s force, in addition to rewarding seasoned officers.
Councilman Cornelius Johnson, public safety committee chair, voted against the contract. He said the contract had “wins” for the administration and the police officer’s union, especially under Act 47 constraints. However, he said he voted against it because the negotiating process excluded city council until the final stages.
“While I do commend the administration, I vote no [because] we need to include council when moving forward,” he said. “In the future regarding all union contracts, [we should] make sure that council is a partner. This puts us in a position when we are unable to make changes.”
Author: Danielle Roth
