CLEARFIELD – Clearfield Borough Council was well-attended Thursday night with two primary issues at hand.
Both issues were brought before council during the public comment period, with the first involving plans for code enforcement inspections.
A local landlord had concerns that some landlords possibly may be unable to afford work to bring their rental properties up to code.
Code Enforcement Officer Brett Stewart addressed the matter and provided clarification over what the borough’s expectations would be.
He said he wasn’t looking for updates or upgrades.
“I’m looking at simple standards for living,” said Stewart, like operational smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and hot water.
So far as property inspections, those would be done every three years, and wouldn’t begin until 2025.
Stewart also noted that property inspections wouldn’t effect local businesses located within rental spaces.
“I’m looking at living areas,” which he did say would include apartments located above local businesses.
Stewart said he will be scheduling the inspections with landlords so “you’ll be aware that I’m coming.”
Multiple landlords blamed most property damage on tenants. Stewart agreed.
He said he didn’t have any issues with the landlords who were present at the meeting. Instead, his concern lies with those he “didn’t see.”
Currently, Stewart said the proposed property inspection fee is $25 for the first unit, then an additional $10 each thereafter.
He noted the fee—at this point—has only been proposed and hasn’t been officially approved by the borough.
When asked, Stewart said those figures were based upon information gathered from code enforcement officials in neighboring areas.
Lastly, Stewart said inspections would only be done prior to the expiration of the three-year window if there’s a reported violation.
In this case, he would take a “preliminary look” after which he’d schedule another inspection to ensure resolution of any issue(s).
The second public concern was over Stinky Run flooding repairs.
Residents brought forth a petition with nearly two-dozen signatures from residents of the East End of the borough.
They reported having suffered property damage not only from the flooding in 2021, but also from flooding five years prior in 2016.
Residents said they checked the drainage and one 48-inch pipe at the borough/township line had a 36-inch corrugated pipe inserted.
This was cutting off much of the flow of water, they said.
Another issue they discovered had to do with a repair to the storm culvert at 12th and Daisy streets, which was installed in July 2014.
Residents said the engineering design was flawed for the repair, and this is what caused the flooding back in 2016.
They said it was damaged when a loaded tri-axle vehicle crossed over the culvert; after this, the borough got an emergency permit for repairs.
According to residents, the two pipes that were supposed to be installed were to be a pair of 36-inch pipes.
But, they said when measured, the piping was one 36-inch pipe, with the other only being a 24-inch pipe.
And so, in their opinion, this repair work was causing the bottleneck of stormwater flow.
Street Foreman Todd Kling said he could relate as he also had struggles during the flooding.
During 2021 flooding, his residence saw four inches of rain within an hour, and within a 24-hour period, it became nearly seven inches.
Currently, borough plans are to have improvements done in 2027; however, residents said the work needs done sooner, not later.
“The redirection of the water is not any of your fault on the council,” one resident noted.
But, “we are asking to have something done sooner before we have an even worse flood event.”