Lehighton Area School District is hopeful for a resolution in the next few weeks to a traffic signal debate standing between it and an occupancy permit for its elementary center opened in 2018.

A memorandum of understanding, signed in June 2017 as an addendum to the district’s land development agreement for the school, states the district is responsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bridge and Ninth streets. District officials, however, contend the light is not warranted and last week, LASD’s board tabled any updated agreement until its new legal firm, Fox Rothschild, has a chance to further review documentation.

“Fox Rothschild is trying to collect documents going back to 2016 to try and understand what we committed to as a district before we enter into a new agreement or change a previous agreement,” LASD board President Joy Beers said. “From what I understand, the borough’s solicitor is working amicably with our solicitor and things are moving forward. Hopefully, by the reorganization meeting on Dec. 6, we will have a recommendation which is lawful and hopefully acceptable to the board.”

According to the MOU signed in 2017, district also agreed to have a traffic study done 6-12 months after the light was installed, during a day when school was in session. The borough’s responsibility was to complete the application for traffic signal approval, submit the application to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and maintain the signal in accordance with Penn­DOT regulations after installation.

At the time, the borough was to place $10,000 in an escrow account at a bank chosen by the borough. The borough would then draw from the account to pay for electricity, operation, maintenance, repair, restoration and/or replacement of the signal. After the $10,000 from the district was spent, all future costs would fall on the borough, according to the MOU.

Director David Bradley requested the district ask the borough for a temporary occupancy permit while the traffic signal agreement is being worked out. The borough has previously denied any such request.

“They have mentioned in public meetings that the reason they didn’t issue another temporary permit is they were afraid this would go on for years,” Bradley said. “We have the responsibility to make sure we follow the law. Then we don’t have to worry about whether or not they choose to enforce this.”

Timothy Gilsbach, a Fox Rothschild attorney, told the board last week the borough has the ability to enforce the occupancy permit requirement and as long as it is not, the district can occupy the building. It is the same advice LASD’s former legal firm, Filer and Schwab, gave in prior meetings.

“it’s my understanding at this point that the borough did inspect the building before it opened and the only real liability issues would be if there is a physical problem with the building. That is not the reason they withheld the permit.”

During the public comment portion of last week’s district board meeting, resident Ryan Bowman suggested the borough was trying to strong arm the district into paying for the traffic light. He later took back his comments after hearing from Autumn Abelovsky, Lehighton Borough councilwoman.

“Any such accusation is far from the truth,” she said. “We offered to pull the traffic signal agreement out of the actual land development agreement and just deal with the signal on its own so it didn’t hold up the occupancy permit,” she said.

Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver also said there is no strife between the district and borough over the matter.

“The borough has worked diligently with us to try and get everything moving forward,” he said. “Nicole, the borough manager, gets us information as soon as they possibly can. Nobody is dragging their feet with this.”