Response to County and Township remarks…
Posted by cmdaly on July 24, 2007
Bradford County initiated a E-911 upgrade project in 2001. One program resulting from this is a readdressing project. Sayre authorized participation in 2002, but finally withdrew from the program in 2006. While we support the goals of the readdressing program and the overall objectives of improving the county 911 system, the process has been poorly managed and communicated.
The county attempted to impose new numbering on Sayre Borough residents on five streets we share with Athens Township. The reason was that since the township renumbered its entire jurisdiction Sayre must follow suit. Unfortunately, no one at the township thought to notify the surrounding boroughs and/or coordinate the changes.
The numbering protocol of the readdressing program establishes a starting point at the west-most or south-most end of a street and assigns a number every 10.56 feet. This system provides 1,000 addresses per statute mile. Unfortunately, Sayre’s addresses move east and west from the Sayre rail yards and north and south from Lockhart Street.
The big issue is no one obtained the Council’s authorization – section 1202(25) of the Borough Code states very simply, the boroughs control numbering this their jurisdiction. We stopped the readdressing, got the United States Postal Service Harrisburg Office to restore our original addresses.
Since that time, county and township personnel have criticized the borough and blamed us for all the problems – their working theory is we caused all the current difficulty and they are totally in the right. Criticism has appeared in the local newspapers that report on County Commissioner and Township meetings and their efforts have given people the idea that we (Sayre) is the bad guy. As Council President and chairperson of the Emergency Management Committee, I was content to let them make noise. Unfortunately, two things occurred that demanded a response.
First, the Township Board of Supervisors directed their solicitor to send a memo to the Address Management Office at Harrisburg to rescind their restoration of Sayre’s old addresses. Second, a report carried in the Morning Times on Friday, July 13th, detailing significant criticism and assignment of blame of and onto the borough.
I read a prepared statement at our Council meeting held July 23rd, under the President’s Report. The text of my comments are included below. They speak for themselves.
According to comments attributed to certain Athens Township supervisors and county commissioners, the problems with the 911 readdressing program is the Valley are caused solely by Sayre Borough. The short-sightedness evident in these people responses is troubling.
They seem to forget that from day one we were assured that we would not have to renumber our community.
They seem to forget that they made a unilateral decision to renumber every County municipality, but failed to communicate their decision to us.
They seem to forget that the County’s policy states that communities with city-style addressing would retain that addressing unless a sufficiently good reason to change; none has ever been provided.
They seem to forget that they began renumbering Athens Township and never once coordinated with their neighbors.
They seem to forget that the borough quickly and successfully coordinated renumbering on Third Street and on Shephard Road in Milltown; and that is was us who coordinated renaming Third Street to Robb Street, a requirement arising out of our mutual December 2002 agreement.
They seem to forget that they ignored that very same agreement and failed to rename two streets in conflict with the borough as identified in that document.
They seem to forget that Commonwealth law gives the borough the authority to control numbering within our jurisdiction.
They seem to forget that they have no authority to supersede that law.
They seem to forget that they failed to secure the Council’s approval before issuing address changes to Sayre Borough residents. Indeed, the notification memo was delivered to the borough at close of business on the day before they delivered the address change notices.
They seem to forget that their demand to the USPS Address Management Office to rescind their decision to restore Sayre Borough’s original numbering cannot be honored because the USPS respects the jurisdictional authority of the borough.
They seem to forget, in spite of their claim that West Lockhart Street originates at Elmira Street, that West Lockhart Street has had, for a very long time, an address system that started at the Sayre rail yards and increased westward until it reached Elmira Street.
They seem to forget that we exist as they have meeting after meeting among themselves to complain about the borough and always seem to fail to invite a borough representative.
And they seem oblivious that they created this problem.
