HomeMy WebLinkAbout532 MarcincinHonorahle Paul M. Marcincin
Mayor, City of Bethlehem
1540 Cloverleaf Street
Rethlehem, PA 1RO01
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
0RnER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 532
DECIDEDOCT 21 1986
MAILED 6
Re: 84- 129 -C
Hear Maynr Marcincin:
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a
possible violation of Act 17n of 1978. The Commission has now completed its
investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions and findings on which
those conclusions are hased are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, violated Section
3(h) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(h), which prohibits puhlic officials from
soliciting or accepting anything of value with the understanding that their
official action will he influenced when you participated in the city's sale of
a piece of land on Stefko Boulevard, to an individual who gave your son a
120,000 interest -free loan.
A. Findings:
1. You served as Mayor of the City of Bethlehem since January, 1978 and are
still serving in that office. As Mayor of the City, you are a puhlic official
Subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act.
?. Records of the Public Works fiv•ision and Purchasing Rureau of the City of
Rethlehem show the following actions relating to the sale of the property at
1829 Stefko Boulevard (also referred to Stefko Boulevard and Gresham Street).
a. On May 24, 1983, city council approved resolution 9750 authorizing
the sale of this property as well as two other parcels of land. This
sale was to he handled hy sealed hid.
h. Rids were required to he suhmitted at the Purchasing Rureau hy 4 :n0
p.m. Friday, June 24, 1983.
c. Two bids were suhmitted; Mr. Len Maier hid (t5n.ff while Mr. flominic
Villani hid S5nn.fln. The property was awarded to Mr. Villani.
Honorahle Paul M. Marcincin
Page 2
d. The city transferred ownership with the property to Dominic and Lisa
C. Villani hy deed dated August 25, 1983. You signed this deed on
hehalf of the city.
3. On Decemher 2, 1983, you provided a report to council relating to the
property at 1829 Stefko Roulevard that included a report from Puhlic Works
Director; Wendell Sherman, a legal opinion from Assistant City Solicitor,
Richard Royer, and a letter from Stephen Chanitz, the city zoning officer.
4. These reports included the following information:
a. Wendell S. Sherman, Director of Public works, reported that his
review resulted from correspondence from Mr. Leo A. Ma1er, Jr.,
concerning the property on Stefko Roulevard. As a result of this
letter, your office was asked to review the matter and report hack to
council. His report included the following:
(1) A deed dated August 25, 1983, that transferred ownership of the
property to Dominic and Lisa C. Villani.
(2) A building permit was issued on September art, 1983,
( On Novemher 16, 1983, a letter was sent to Mr. Villani
requesting that he discontinue work on the site until the city
could resolve certain questions relating to a sewer line on the
property.
(4) The sale of this property had heen under discussion for some
time and approved hy the Parks and Public Property Committee.
(Note: Mr. Sherman did not indicate how long it had been under
discussion).
(5) According to Mr. Maier, he had been contacted hy a woman from
the city asking if he was interested in purchasing the property.
He was, and it was recommended that the property he sold to Mr.
Maier for $1.00. However, after a review hy the Law Bureau,
Attorney Kevin Kelleher stated that the property should he sold
t hrniigh public hi ddi ng.
It was generally helieved that a building could not he put on
the property but no specific study had heen made to determine
whether that helief was correct. A sewer line ran across the
property and general city practice required a twenty -foot
easement on each side of the center line of the pipe and it was
helieved this would prohihit building on the property.
(7) Mr. Villani asked the City Rureau of Engineering whether the
sanitary sewer easement could he movers five_ -feet and thus,
permit sufficient space to huild on the property. After review,
the city engineer agreed that the easement could he moved.
(6)
Honorahle Paul M. Marcincin
Page 3
Historically, the Bureau of Engineering has made such decisions.
However, the Bureau of Engineering's review was only to
determine whether equipment could he positioned to excavate the
trench if necessary. In this first review, the Rureau did not
consider problems possihly created hy the weight of : structure
in that area. In a second review, the Rureau determined that a
huilding load would not create a problem.
In Septemher, Mr. Villani asked for a permit to ,construct a
two -story family dwelling on the property. The permit was
issued as was a permit for water service to the dwelling.
Mr. Villani also requested a zoning change to allow him to
construct a combination commercial and residential building.
This request was rejected and Mr. Villani hegan construction of
the two -story family dwelling as allowed hy his original
permit.
(10) Mr. Sherman, Public Works Director, recommended that a more
thorough review he conducted on future property sales, that
these sales he made hy way of public auction and any deviation
should require council's approval, and questions relating to
huilding on the lot he referred to the city zoning officer, the
city engineer, and the city planner prior to responding to
citizen inquiries.
h. The legal opinion from Assistant City Solicitor, Richard F. Royer,
was dated necemher 1, 1983 and found that the city had the right to
sell the property "without any warranties as to title and hy virtue
of a quit -claim deed."
c. A letter from Mr. Stephen L. Chanitz, Chief of the Rureau of
Inspections, stated that he had heen approached some time before hy
Mr. Leo A. Maier, Jr., ahout purchasing the property in question. He
advised Mr. Maier to have a real estate appraiser determine the value
of the land and to check the location of the sewer easement with the
engi neeri r,g department.
5. During the course of construction, Mr. Villani was cited for a numher of
building violations. One resulted in a hearing before Magistrate Flizaheth
Romig. Mr. Villani pleaded guilty to the citation and was fined R5.00 plus
X25.50 in costs. Joseph F. Leeson, City Solicitor, agreed to this settlement
of the citations with the attorney for Mr. Villani.
6. On Octoher 26, 1983, Richard F. Royer, Assistant City Solicitor, issued a
legal opinion to Robert P. Kilcullen, Chairman of the Zoning Hearing Ro rd,
finding that the issues relating to the quality of an owner's title are not
issues to he addressed hy a zoning hearing hoard.
Honorable Pahl M. Marcincin
Page 4
7. On April 26, 1979, Richard F. Royer, Assistant pity Solicitor, issued a
legal opinion to the city planning commission finding that the "Northwesterly
7.5 feet of an unopened portion of Parker Street which ahuts the Villani
property may properly and legally he used in the computation of density
requirements and the calculation of setback requirements. Therefore,
approval of the plan, as suhmitted, is within the letter and intent of the
law. This allowed Villani, the developer, to build seven apartments on the
tract of land, rather than six, which would have keen allowed had Villani not
had the rights to 7.5 feet of Parker Street.
R. On May 23, 198D, Common Pleas Court affirmed a zoning hearing hoard
decision that the action of neighbors objecting to the development of a tract
of land located on Easton Avenue (related to the Parker Street area) was not
timely and the hoard refused to take testimony.
9. -Your son, Robert Marcincin, and his wife, Heather, purchased property at
162( Easton Avenue as follows:
a. The property was purchased in March of 1982 from John J. Ta1larico,
Jr., Dominic Villani, Veto Villani, Armando Villani, Angeline
Villani, Lisa Villani and Joanne V. Tallarico.
h. Richard F. Royer, who was also the assistant city solicitor who had
issued several legal opinions regarding the city's sale of the Stefko
Roulevard property, acted as Escrow Agent. Final settlement was made
at his place of business and he represented Robert Marcincin in
negotiations with the First Valley Rank of Rethlehem on the mortgage
matter. This sale included a three year interest free "second
priority mortgage" to your son from the sellers who included Dominic
and Lisa Villani, the persons who purchased the property at 1829
Stefko Roulevard.
C. Discussion: As the Mayor for the City of .Rethlehem
you
official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65aP.S. public
64n2. As such, you are subject to the requirements of the law. Rosenfield,
R2 -nin. The Ethics Act provides as follows:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(h) No person shall offer or give to a puhlic official or
public employee or candidate for public office or a memher
of his immediate family or a husiness with which he is
associated, and no public official or puhlic employee or
candidate for puhlic office shall solicit or accept,
Honorable Paul M. Marcincin
Page 5
anything of value, including a gift, loan, political
contrihution, reward, or promise of future employment
hased on any understanding that the vote, official action,
nr ,judgment of the puhlic official or puhlic employee or
candidate for puhlic office would he influenced thereby.
65 P.S. 403(h).
In the instant situation, while your son received a !t20,00O interest free
loan from an individual who purchased property from the city and who after
obtaining said property was ahle to convince the city to make`certain changes
regarding the property sewer line in order to develop that property, there is
no evidence that you were offered or received anything of value in return for
the city's decision in this matter. Our review of the evidence indicates that
while the Office of the Mayor did perform certain functions in relation to
this property, those functions appeared to he routine in nature and you
personally were not involved in any of the city's review or consideration of
the sale and zoning changes regarding this property. As such, we do not
believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that you violated the
provisions of the State Ethics Act. Your son is an adult not residing in your
household, There is no irdication that you were aware of or participated in
his dealings with Mr. Villani in relation to the interest free loan. There is
no evidence that you solicited or offered anything of value in order to
influence ,,sae city's decis i o , in relation to the Stefko Boulevard property.
We e not 4 t the Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, you may wish to
take_ a more in -depth review of the actions regarding the sale of this
property. This is so specifically in light of the fact that the Assistant
City Solictor w:au hed hen responsible for issuing a numher of legal opinions
on behalf of tha eitz regarding the Stefko Roulevard property and the city's
authority to ch r,ge th.• ;ewer line requirements, was also involved in the
aforementione- interest free loan. Our investigation further reveals that the
assistant solicitor h:d acted as escrow agent in the transaction where Mr.
Villani had provider+ paw r.cn ►sip h the $7n,nnf interest free loan. Our
investigation ceve6ien no disclosures tay - ttis individual in re
private dealings with Mr. Viilani and your sor. As such, we helieve that the
City of Bethlehem should further review this matter under appropriate city
codes and ordinances.
C. Conclusion: There is no evidence to indicate that you violated the State
Ethics Act when the City of Bethlehem sold a parcel of property to an
individual who had provided your adult son with a !..O,nfn interest free loan.
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with
Section R(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 40R(a). However, this Order is final
and will he made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined
as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code
2.3R. (luring this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he
waives his right to challenge this may violate this confidentiality by
releasing, discussing or.circulating this Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall he fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e).
Honorable Paul M. Marcincin
Page 6
Ry the Commission,
.G. Sieher Pancoast
Chairman