Councilman Jack Mundie Wants To Raise Hazleton's Tax Millage

In his ongoing effort to convince Luzerne County officials to conduct a reassessment of properties Councilman Jack Mundie would cause Hazleton's tax millage to increase to make up for lost revenue according to Director of Assessment Anthony Alu. 

In this Standard Speaker article written by Michael Buffer he reports that Alu stated  "A reassessment this year or next year would likely reduce assessment totals, and that could result in increases in property tax rates "to compensate for" losses in tax revenue for the county, municipalities and school districts".

Another reassessment would cost more than $2 million and take two years to complete, Alu said. A reassessment would require additional staff in the assessor's office, Alu said.

It also would to force the county to spend about $300,000 to pay a company to review three years of sales data and devise a mathematical formula to compute new assessed values, Alu explained.

Mr. Mundie's proposal would do nothing to lower property taxes for Hazleton residents.  In addition Mr. Mundie cites research of selling home prices in his presentation that are questionable.  The housing market has been quiet in Hazleton.  To make a broad comparison on the effect to Hazleton's market a sizeable representative sample of sold homes for such a study would be needed to draw an accurate conclusion.  More than likely the homes he is citing include "distressed sales" resulting from tax sales or foreclosures.  Those figures aren't accurate for comparison.

His position is pure theatrics for the upcoming City Council election.  In the end his proposal would cause the millage in Hazleton to increase.  Hazleton is Third Class City.  As such, by current law, it can only tax properties up to 25 mills without going to court. 

Hazleton reached 25 mills in 1972.  In 1977 it was forced to apply for an extra 5 mills to the Luzerne County Court.  That rate was in effect until 2008 which caused all kinds of financial problems for Hazleton, as well as many other third class cities.

His attack on reassessment can have a negative effect on persons interested in purchasing homes in Hazleton.  If they feel the value is going to be depressed, while an attractive buy, it can also deter sales because they may feel other markets have a much better chance for appreciation.

Frank Sorik has it correct.  Quote- "Frank Sorick, president of the Wilkes-Barre City Taxpayers Association, told council to hold off on another reassessment because he expects the state Legislature to outlaw property taxes."

Mr. Mundie's approach is designed to help himself, not the taxpayers.

Resident's Letter To Editor Against Eachus

This letter proves the right message is making it through Camp Eachus's bogus claims.

Editor,

My life has been dedicated to upholding the law. In additon to being the former mayor of Boonton, NJ, I was with the Morris County, N.J., Sheriff's Department for 24 years and spent 10 years as a constable for the Superior Court of The State of New Jersey, prior to moving to this area many years ago.

I've always been passionate about issues that impact the area in which I have resided and, as such, have been closely following the race for state representative between 14-year-incumbent Todd Eachus and attorney Tarah Toohil.

So, let me get this straight. Eachus has not answered the Bonusgate questions; Eachus has not agreed to a debate; Eachus has not returned the campaign contributions he accepted from admitted felon Bob Powell. What has he done? He has raised taxes repeatedly; he has watched our area plunge into the depths of joblessness and increased violent crimes; and he has made false statements to our community.

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting attorney Tarah Toohil when she was first running for this office. In my conversation, I learned she was never asked to run for the position. Just the opposite. She informed the Republicans she was running for the office. They were going to have to accept the fact that she was going after this seat. It's not her style to ask permission of anyone, including any "political party bosses," contrary to Mr. Eachus' false assertions in flyers.

Furthermore, Mr. Eachus claims now that attorney Toohil was hired by now disgraced Judge Mark Ciavarella. This is beyond a stretch of truth! It's a flat-out lie! Toohil was a law clerk at the courthouse and all people who clerk at the courthouse must be signed off on by the president judge at the time. And at the time, Chivarella was president judge. And if someone named Joe Blow were president judge at the time, that person would have signed off on her. She was not "hired" by anyone. She was approved for a position based upon her merits and abilities - not any patronage.

Seems Mr. Eachus wants to claim anyone who ever stepped foot in that courthouse as corrupt. So, none of us better go there to renew our passports or we will be facing similar false allegations from our elected official.

And what makes this even worse is that our area was hit by a horrible armed robbery at the Laurel Mall yesterday. Mr. Eachus should be talking about plans to reduce crime in our area, not running around like a chicken with his head cut off (yes, I said the chicken word) trying to spread false assertions for his own political self-interest.

So, Eachus, buries over $16 million for the cargo airport into a state gaming bill; he does not give us property tax reliefwe were promised in exchange for table games; he takes money from felons; he uses per diems to pay off a second home he bought with our taxpayer dollars; and he has the nerve to claim others are tied to corruption?

Seems to me, as someone who has years of experience in law enforcement, Eachus is walking a very slippery slope. In fact, I just think he fell on his feathery behind with this tactic.


Lou Masterbon
Butler Township

Eachus - Gaming Revenue Used As Promised

I like the last claim. "Gaming Revenue Used As Promised". Mr. Eachus needs to explain why he gave our promised property tax relief to the school districts. Why didn't he give it to us? Why didn't he give it to county or local municipalities, why school districts? Is it because he owes the PSEA? He claims to have delivered as promised. When did he promise the PSEA they would get more funding for school districts disguised as property tax relief?

Pennsylvania's Legislature Needs To Go On A Diet

Back in October, 2009 SOP highlighted a petition drive to reduce the size of Pennsylvania's legislature. In February, 2009 SOP opined in this piece Can We Really Afford The Pennsylvania Legislature Staffing

With the May primary coming soon Robert Swift of the Standard Speaker Harrisburg Bureau filed this report today Pennsylvania near top of lists for largest, most costly legislatures. SOP used data from IssuesPa.com for its posts but the data was from 2005. Swift brings us closer to today's cost using 2008 data although some are more current.

The NCSL report shows that Pennsylvania, while sixth in population, has a legislative branch of 253 lawmakers and 2,918 support staff, dwarfing those of larger, more populous states.

No other state even comes close to the size of its legislative operation.

And the cost shows.

Only California outspent Pennsylvania on its legislature in 2008-09, said the NCSL, which used 2008 U.S. Census data for its report. Even then, it wasn't by much.

With 120 lawmakers and 2,067 legislative staffers, California spent $336 million on its legislative branch, compared to Pennsylvania's $319 million. But California, the most populous state in the nation, had 36.5 million people in 2008. Pennsylvania had 12.5 million.

And the drop-off in cost after Pennsylvania is dramatic.

The nation's third most expensive full-time legislature, New York, has 212 lawmakers and a support staff of 2,676. It spent $216 million in 2008-09, more than $100 million less than Pennsylvania, the NCSL reports.

The fourth, Florida, has only 160 lawmakers with a support staff of 1,457, the NCSL reports. It spent $175 million in 2008-09. Florida's population was 18.4 million in 2008, the NCSL noted. New York had 19.4 million people.

States with populations closer to Pennsylvania, like Ohio at 11.5 million and Illinois at 12.8 million, spent far less on their legislatures. Illinois spent $71 million; Ohio, $48 million. Illinois has 177 lawmakers and 980 staffers. Ohio has 132 legislators and 465 staffers.

The difference between full-time and part-time legislatures is even more stark.

Texas, for instance, with a 2008 population of 24.3 million, has the largest of all part-time legislatures in the country with 181 lawmakers and a legislative staff of 2,090. It spent $126 million in 2008-09, according to the NCSL.

Officially, New Hampshire has the largest state assembly in the country with a delegation of 424 lawmakers. But it, too, is part-time. With a support staff of only 147 people, it spent only $14 million on its legislature in 2008-09.

Only 10 of the country's 50 legislatures are considered full time.

The NCSL defines a part-time legislature as one in which delegates spend 50 percent or less of a work week on their legislative duties. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers spend an average of 80 percent of their work week in Harrisburg or their home offices, it says.

Legislative leaders took the recommendation and, beginning in the 1970s, the public began electing candidates who promised to be full-time legislators. Part of the consequences is that the legislative bureaucracy swelled from 532 staffers in 1969, to 1,700 in 1984 and close to 3,000 in 2003 while the number of lawmakers remains fixed at 203 House members and 50 senators.

By 2008, the legislative expense involved translated into a cost of $25.40 a year for every man, woman and child in the state. It was the third highest per capita cost in the nation, behind Alaska at $57.72 and Rhode Island at $26.79.

New York's per capita cost, meanwhile, came to $11.11 in 2008 while California, by virtue of its large population, came to $9.19

The base salary for legislators in both houses of Pennsylvania's General Assembly is $78,314 a year, fourth highest in the nation, behind California at $95,291, Michigan at $79,650 and New York at $79,500.

Salaries, however, are only a part of the actual costs. Factoring in health and pension benefits and other expenses, the real cost of the average legislator climbs to $125,000 to $150,000, depending on how much a legislator claims in reimbursements

In 2006 the League of Women Voters testified before the House State Government Committee supporting a reduction in the size of the legislature. The Commonwealth Foundation testified before the same committee in 2008. Newstalk Radio 1240 discussed this issue on its airwaves. This editorial appeared in the Delco Times calling for a reduction in the size of the legislature.

The voters should share some blame for this out of control spending. When will the taxpayer backlash and anger reach a height like the pay raise scandal to toss out the incumbents and force reform to reduce the size of the legislture? If there was only a "Jenny Craig" for government. Maybe the "fat cats" living high off the hog will finally get the message.

Property Tax Effect On Hazleton Property Owners

The media has lost focus in the debate over the proposed sale of the water department under the governing of the Hazleton City Authority. Before they talk whether it should or should not be sold the question of "WHY" needs to be addressed.

When Mayor Lou Barletta proposed his plan he DIDN'T WANT to sell the water department; he proposed it as a possible SOLUTION to the financial crisis facing the City of Hazleton.   What is the consequence if the City does not sell the water department to Hazleton taxpayers?

For two years he was asking Hazleton's City Council for ideas and ways to bridge a continual gap between income and expenses.  No plan was brought to the table.  He felt the need to propose his plan before the City reached the point of no return.  Political pundits have distracted the taxpayers from the reason behind his plan and are trying to gain focus on the water department as a means of pushing their political agenda.

The City of Hazleton has unpaid bills and debts owed to the tune of over $3,100,000.00, around 3.5 mills in additional taxation over and above the 70% increase in taxes for 2010. The Mayor and City Council debated long and hard about department cuts and what was in the best interests of its citizens. Debate over police cuts were furious but in the end police protection was paramount to the wants and needs of its citizens, business owners, and the public at large, rightfully so.

Hazleton taxpayers must face the fact that decades of stagnant revenues due to a millage cap of 25 mills by Pennsylvania law was the precipitating factor leading to this "perfect storm". Rising health insurance costs, pension costs, employee salaries, heat, light(the city pays for every street light) and fuels costs coupled with declining property tax revenues, a steep decline in Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue, and stagnant mercantile and business privilege taxes in a severe overall economic decline not only nationally but globally brought Hazleton to this point. Hazleton is not alone by any means. Municipalities across the state and the nation are in financial dilemmas.

In the calculations on the slide above SOP added the additional property tax millage needed to bare bones fund the budget to the base year of 2009. For 2010 Hazleton City Council already announce a property tax millage rate of 2.38. In order to erase the $3.1 million dollar deficit another 3.5 mills would be needed in 2011 plus the funding for any income shortfalls.

At the present time the City's budget is approximately $1.5 million short in revenues vs. expenses. That figure must be added to the defict erasing millage to set the correct millage needed for 2011 and each year after that assuming no change. That figure would be a staggering 7.6 mills or $744.80 per $100,000.00 assessment for 2011. An additional 1.67 mills would be needed every year thereafter to make up for the $1.5 million dollar shortfall assuming no inflationary pressures and the same income vs. expense stream.

For 2012 the tax rate would be 9.27, 2013 would be 10.94, and 2014 would be 12.61. For year 2014 Hazleton taxpayers would be paying an unbearable burden of $1236.00 per $100,000.00 per year. For a property owner with a $200,000.00 assessment that tab would be $2,472.00 just for Hazleton property taxes.

None of those figures include any amount for debt service which is represented on the bar to the right of the millage for the corresponding year.

What started out as $233.00 per $100,000.00 of property assessed value will balloon to $1236.00 in just four years. Those who complain about the effect of increased water rates on seniors are not being honest with the real impact those on limited incomes face without the sale of the Water Deparment at this point.

In contrast the average residential water bill according to HCA audit figures is $34.43 per month. If those rates increased by even 30% the bill would only rise to $44.76 per month. The total increase would amount to $124.00 per year and property tax rates would remain stable due to the interest income from the irrevocable trust created with the net proceeds of such a sale funding the unfunded expenses in the budget.

The benefit to those customers not living within the boundaries of Hazleton City would be the increased property tax revenue to their respective municipalities when tax-exempt properties are placed back on the tax books due to ownership by a private entity, not a tax-exempt body.

In the case of providing water service to Pardeesville residents alone the audit for 2009 demonstrates that the loans, not the total cost, borne by the Hazleton City Authority for that project amounted to $7,106.00 per customer for a total of $568,543.00. The project was funded in 2000.

The water revenue bond for that project will mature in 2033. HCA asked for an extension of their life which should have ended in 1988 according to the Municipal Authorities Act to 2043. If their bonds end in 2033 according to their audit the question remains for the necessity to extend life to 2043. Where the Board Members forthright in their request?

If Hazleton taxpayers don't want the sale of the water department another solution must make it to the table. Dr. David Sosar was quoted "There has got to be a better way to do this." In another article by Mia Light of the Standard Speaker she writes Director David Sosar urged any citizen with a viable idea to step up and make their voice heard. Even Dr. Sosar admits he doesn't have the answer. If he does then Dr. Sosar and anyone else should propose it to the Mayor and City Council.

Until those ideas emerge here is a chart of the property tax stability that will occur if the water department is sold and the proceeds are put in an irrevocable trust. Property taxes would remain stable while water ratepayers will only experience a small increase in water rates. Inflationary pressures are devoid of the figures in the chart above but that is the case for the chart below as well.

Obviously a steady rate of 2.38 mills would be the preferable option to 12.61 mills. It would be hard to make the case that the P.U.C. would allow a 30% increase in water rates by 2014 if they are frozen for the next two or three years.

What should not be lost is the emotional toll and the prospect facing HCA Water Department employees in such a transition. Mayor Barletta has been clear about the need to preserve their jobs and preserve the jobs of Hazleton employees. If one entity loses jobs to the other there would be no net gain. Obviously, even to the novice, that wouldn't be acceptable. As far as the rate increase goes this quote says it all. Witness Mayor Barletta's committment.

"We want to make sure there is a rate freeze for a number of years. Second, we want to make sure the employees are retained," Barletta said in an interview on Thursday.

Unlike the Pennsylvania legislature that promised us reduced school property taxes here is a plan that will make property tax reduction happen, reduce the burden on those with fixed income, and preserve jobs.

One must not lose sight of the fact that American Water operated and controlled the operations of the water department of the HCA from 1943 until 2006. When the majority of the board makes comments about keeping safe, clean drinking water they are less than disingenuous. American Water has a history of keeping safe, clean drinking water in this area for approximately 63 years. Aqua American dates back to 1886. The oldest serving Board Member has only been there for 18 years, hardly a track record to hang a hat on. But be mindful 18 years can be too long for anyone who is so entrenched that the public as a consideration is not the real reason.

Pennsylvania Property Tax Relief Not A Sure Bet

Rob Hopkins over at Keytone Politics wrote this commentary last month about property tax relief in Pennsylvania.

Next month, the state must certify whether the fund has enough money to provide property tax cuts. Gov. Ed Rendell's administration said that there will be money for tax cuts.

But with a month to go, the fund hasn't reached the threshold to ensure that homeowners receive tax cuts, according to the administration.

The account had a balance of $456 million as of March 16, according to the Governor's Office of the Budget. Under state law, the fund must contain at least $570 million for the state to distribute money to reduce homeowners' property taxes.

It's not clear what will happen if that threshold isn't met by April 15, the date of certification.

It would be easy for the legislature to pass a law redefining the target for property tax relief. But then again refer to my post where this legislature has yet to pass any law this year which was sent on to the Governor for a signature.

Senator Mellow How About A Mini-Stimulus

Some people fly under the radar. Let's take a look at who donated to Senator Mellow in 2008. According to the state's webstie there were 878 donors. I believe there are 12 million people in Pennsylvania.

If you want to see how much political committees gave take a look at these that made the over $250.00 list.

Cycle 1 with 12 donors for $22,200.00

Cycle 2 with 1 donor for $280.00

Cycle 3 with 7 donors-$10,500.00

Cycle 4 with 60 donors-$48,525.00

Cycle 5 with 28 donors-$43,350.00

Cycle 6 with 15 donors-$36,250.00

Cycle 7 with 15 donors-$36,250.00

I chose Senator Mellow because the Blue Cross board he sits on has a sizable surplus of money. Acoording to Michelle Davidson, Blue Cross of NEPA spokesperson, this Blue is sitting on a $370 million dollar surplus. The state is sitting on $436 million of casino money earmarked for property tax reduction. And Obama said Congress needed to pass an economic stimulus. I found almost $800 million just by surfing the net.

Where's Our Property Tax Relief Mr. Eachus?

According to Brad Bumsted over at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review House Majority Leader Todd Eachus raised the question on whether AG Corbett should resign if he decides about a run for governor.

In remarks during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon, Eachus questioned whether Pennsylvania taxpayers could get their money's worth if Corbett faced the demands of a statewide campaign for governor.

A Classic Game of Wag The Dog. Let's hit back with a little sarcasim. So Todd, how much are the taxpayers getting for their money over the actions that led to Bonusgate? How much do they get every time you send a mailer to your district? How much did they get when you paid off Mike Veon's campaign debt? How much did they get when the taxpayers financed some of the promotional material for the proposed Cargo Airport outside of Hazleton?

How much property tax relief did they get with the casino money? I'll answer the last one. Zip, nadda, nothing. The account had a balance of $456 million as of March 16, according to the Governor's Office of the Budget. Under state law, the fund must contain at least $570 million for the state to distribute money to reduce homeowners' property taxes. Yet, how much money was distributed to municipalities before property owners??? As of February almost $170 million went to the municipalities according to Mary Collins speaking at the PA Gaming Congress. Why didn't municipalities have to wait but almost 3 times as much money is sitting for distribution to taxpayers and the average Joe has to wait??

How much money did they get in the Beavers for Initiative For Growth with Mike Veon? Let's read what Brad Bumsted at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review had to say about that.

Attorney General Tom Corbett apparently didn't want to politicize the grand jury presentment against a corrupt Beaver County nonprofit by bringing Gov. Ed Rendell directly into it.

But Rendell's shadow loomed large over the waves of state tax money poured into the Beaver Initiative for Growth, or BIG, the alleged criminal enterprise of the Democrats' former House whip, Mike Veon, a go-to guy for Rendell in the General Assembly.

All of BIG's money came from you -- the taxpayers, Corbett said.

BIG was formed by Veon in 1991 but there wasn't much state money flowing. Veon, however, knew he had hit the jackpot when Rendell, a Democrat, was elected in 2002. Roughly $9.9 million of the $10 million in taxpayer money that BIG would eventually receive came between 2003 and 2006.

Veon allegedly told BIG's former executive director, John Gallo, that "since Edward Rendell had just taken office as governor there were going to be millions of dollars coming to BIG." Gallo cooperated with the grand jury.

At a news conference in Pittsburgh last week, Corbett was asked why BIG all of a sudden got an influx of cash. He told reporters they would have to draw their own conclusions.

I'll do the same with regards to why Corbett became Eachus's target.