Correcting misinformation or disinformation is about restoration, not retaliation. Facts help us build understanding. We cannot control one’s opinion. It’s not about opinion versus opinion. This webpage is maintained to provide verifiable information versus interpretation. The Borough will anchor conversations to documented standards, policies, laws, and timelines. Public discussion is always welcome. Public information, however, must be accurate.
1 – Public comments made to the Bath Borough Happenings & Helpings Community Facebook Group, under Home News article entitled: ‘Bath Borough Council advances America 250 plans, adopts Elm Street one-way ordinance‘ posted on February 12, 2026.
The post to a public community group with public comments:
Claim #1: “But the actual truth was that there are current properties that are so close to the road there is not enough space to widen the road.” Comment by Dawn Brettle Mayer
FACT: The statement is accurate and directly supports the Borough’s position.
Existing properties along Elm Street are built so close to the roadway that significant widening of the road, in accordance with existing subdivision and land development regulations, would require substantial right-of-way acquisition, property impacts, and major off-site road construction between Wolf and Broad streets (approximately 415 feet of roadway length involving several properties). These constraints are precisely why:
- Road widening would cost more than the development project itself (building a twin home), and
- It would be unreasonable and disproportionate to require a private developer to complete such extensive off-site public infrastructure improvements.
The Borough’s analysis consistently reflected these limitations. The comment, while it may have had the desired effect to contradict or show there was ‘more to the story’ the comment does not contradict the Borough’s explanation–it reinforces it.
Claim #2: “Make sure to pay your storm water tax while council waives it for a developer.” Comment by Trista Moser-Gutekunst
This claim is FALSE.
FACT:
For context, Borough Council meeting February 9th, 2026, Agenda Item 15/22 Motion & Action Items section (E) is related to a development project at 522 E. Northampton Street with a stormwater management ordinance waiver and is also related to Elm Street being converted from two-way to one-way: First, stormwater charges are not a tax. Stormwater invoices are fees calculated based on total impervious surface area on a property– not assessed property value. Second, no stormwater invoice was waived for the developer. The developer remains fully subject to stormwater billing administered by the Bath Borough Stormwater Authority. Third, what Council actually waived was a limited procedural provision of the Borough’s Stormwater Management Ordinance related to private stormwater release agreements when infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs) are within:
- 10 feet downgradient, or
- 100 feet upgradient of a building foundation
The waiver was granted because neither criterion applied in this case, and the waiver avoided requiring a neighboring property owner to sign a release that was not technically necessary.
Finally, the waiver had NO impact on stormwater fees, had NO involvement with the Stormwater Authority, and did NOT reduce or eliminate any stormwater invoice.
In summary, the physical constraints of Elm Street make road widening (in accordance with today’s development standards) impractical and excessively costly, validating the Borough’s decision-making. No developer received a waiver of stormwater fees or billing. Council’s action was a narrow ordinance waiver, unrelated to stormwater charges, taxes, or billing practices.
The Borough remains committed to transparency, accuracy, and correcting mis/disinformation when it appears in public forums.
2 – Public comment made to the Bath Borough Happenings & Helpings Community Facebook Group, apparently shaming the Borough for municipal sidewalks at Rehrig Park that were snow covered, posted on February 24th, 2026.
The Post:
For clarity:
The Borough ordinance requires sidewalks to be clear of snow and ice 24 hours after the snow or ice had fallen or was caused to be formed.
Before the comments were turned off by the administrator, the original poster said the Borough had not cleared this sidewalk all season long, which was untrue. Municipal sidewalks have been cleared by the Public Works crew throughout the winter season.
The post contains photographs of the Borough sidewalks covered in snow; however, the post lacked any context as to the high wind condition that ensued after the initial snowstorm. The conditions created a result where drifting of snow occurred after initial clearing. The crew was within the proper timelines to clear the sidewalks after the drifting event.
The Borough remains committed to maintaining safe walkways and enforcing ordinance requirements fairly and consistently.
Residents who observe specific areas needing attention are encouraged to contact the Borough Office directly so they can be addressed promptly.
3 – Bath, PA – Community Hub Facebook post of October 25, 2026, promoting the website “TRUTH | The record behind the cost”
The Post:
For clarity:
The post links to a website published by Michael Long under the headline “You heard the accusation. Read the record.” The post’s caption is made up only of hashtags: #italyextradition #cooked #FraudAlert #badboys #done. Its image shows caricatures of four people being tossed out of a frying pan. Commenting on the post was turned off.
The hashtags suggest fraud, criminal prosecution and a matter already decided. The website the post promotes does not say any of that. In its own words:
- About the image used in the post: “Satirical illustration. Not documentary evidence.”
- About the $86,170.53 developer security release: “The developer was paid once.”
- About the QuickBooks entries it examines: “These are different book measures, not one traced bank loss.”
- About the 2025 audit restatement: “That is a correction to the statements, not a finding of missing cash.”
- About its own content: “Evidence, inference and disagreement are not the same thing.”
The website does not allege fraud, theft or any crime by any Borough official. Where the word “fraud” appears on the site, it appears in general discussion of what audits are designed to detect, or in quotations. The accusations appear only in the hashtags.
This is the same pattern described in Notable Statements of 2024, Item #12, where a post stated that money was embezzled on the same day a supporting report stated that its findings “do not definitively prove intentional misconduct.” When a post and the material it promotes say different things, the material is the better guide. (See “Reading Borough Records: Common Mistakes,” point 7, on the Fact Check page.)
The records the website relies on are public. The Borough’s complete independent audit reports for 2019 through 2025, its itemized legal and professional-service costs, and its October 23, 2026 response are posted on the Borough website. Questions can be directed to the Borough Office at (610) 837-6525.
