Showing posts with label proposed sale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proposed sale. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
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.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Hazleton's Financial Needs And The Case To Sell The HCA Water Department
When Hazleton's Mayor Lou Barletta announced his plan to lay the foundation for a long term solution to the City of Hazleton's financial crunch many of the taxpayers of the City actually did not see the presentation at City Hall. Due to the impact on low income working families and seniors of the City SOP has obtained the file for the presentation from the City's website.
Taxpayers in the City who sign the petition opposing the sale of the HCA Water Department are really signing a petition for higher taxes. As you are about to see the fixed cost expenses are outpacing revenue despite the opponent claims that the City was mismanaged.
The first slide(not in the presentation but presented here) shows the one time revenue sources by year from 2004 that have postponed the financial crunch from occuring sooner.
The next slide demonstrates how adjusted income failed to keep pace with adjusted expenses.
This next image shows how real estate tax revenue actually declined over the period from 2004-2008.
There was a slight increase in Earned Income Tax Revenue but considering the time frame one could argue that it was essentially flat.
Likewise the Mercantile and Business Privilege Taxes were essentially flat to only very slightly down.
Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue took a dramatic drop due to Harrisurg and Todd Eachus's messing with the way the revenue is collected. Municipalities across the state suffered, not only Hazleton, because our legislators lack the acumen to understand their mistake.
Employee insurance costs are up over $417,000 for the period 2004-2008. Every municipal employer, as well as most private entities, in the state is facing the same exhorbitant rise in those costs.
Employee salaries really demonstrate one of the biggest reasons for Hazleton's financial crunch. Unfortunately one of the only solutions to this problem is to decrease the size of the police department which in SOP's opinion is not an option given the current crime element trying to take a foothold on Hazleton's streets.
This graph showing overtime costs illustrates another uncontrollable problem for Hazleton that is tied to the last chart. Police investigations into crimes in Hazleton, just like the Derrick Kichline murder, are the biggest reasons for these overtime costs. Snowplowing in the winter time is another factor contributing to this area. If someone can figure out how to control crime and the weather, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, move over another billionaire will be joining the crowd.
Just these three budget areas demonstrate the devastating impact on the budget of the City of Hazleton and to its taxpayers.
That presentation in a nutshell sums up the reason the sale of the Water Department of the HCA is even being considered. The Mayor and City Council weighed different options before coming to this conclusion. SOP has of yet to see any other viable plan put forward. If Hazleton taxpayers sign the petitions to oppose the sale of the Water Department someone should explain the dire consequences beforehand. Expect a dramatic increase in property taxes due to the reassessment dropping the millage so drastically.
Taxpayers in the City who sign the petition opposing the sale of the HCA Water Department are really signing a petition for higher taxes. As you are about to see the fixed cost expenses are outpacing revenue despite the opponent claims that the City was mismanaged.
The first slide(not in the presentation but presented here) shows the one time revenue sources by year from 2004 that have postponed the financial crunch from occuring sooner.
The next slide demonstrates how adjusted income failed to keep pace with adjusted expenses.
This next image shows how real estate tax revenue actually declined over the period from 2004-2008.
There was a slight increase in Earned Income Tax Revenue but considering the time frame one could argue that it was essentially flat.
Likewise the Mercantile and Business Privilege Taxes were essentially flat to only very slightly down.
Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue took a dramatic drop due to Harrisurg and Todd Eachus's messing with the way the revenue is collected. Municipalities across the state suffered, not only Hazleton, because our legislators lack the acumen to understand their mistake.
Employee insurance costs are up over $417,000 for the period 2004-2008. Every municipal employer, as well as most private entities, in the state is facing the same exhorbitant rise in those costs.
Employee salaries really demonstrate one of the biggest reasons for Hazleton's financial crunch. Unfortunately one of the only solutions to this problem is to decrease the size of the police department which in SOP's opinion is not an option given the current crime element trying to take a foothold on Hazleton's streets.
This graph showing overtime costs illustrates another uncontrollable problem for Hazleton that is tied to the last chart. Police investigations into crimes in Hazleton, just like the Derrick Kichline murder, are the biggest reasons for these overtime costs. Snowplowing in the winter time is another factor contributing to this area. If someone can figure out how to control crime and the weather, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, move over another billionaire will be joining the crowd.
Just these three budget areas demonstrate the devastating impact on the budget of the City of Hazleton and to its taxpayers.
That presentation in a nutshell sums up the reason the sale of the Water Department of the HCA is even being considered. The Mayor and City Council weighed different options before coming to this conclusion. SOP has of yet to see any other viable plan put forward. If Hazleton taxpayers sign the petitions to oppose the sale of the Water Department someone should explain the dire consequences beforehand. Expect a dramatic increase in property taxes due to the reassessment dropping the millage so drastically.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hazleton Residents- The Why As To The Need To Look at The HCA Sale
Mayor Lou Barletta's Plan To Secure Hazleton's Future
What happened to Hazleton City's revenue vs. expenses since 2004 and how did the City arrive at its financial position? The slide presentation will prove it wasn't mismanagement as some detractors state. Adjusted Revenue vs. Expenses tells the whole story. Real estate tax down by over $250,000.00- how does one mismanage real estate tax? No growth in Mercantile Tax- how does one mismanage what is paid? Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue down $225,758.00- again how does one mismanage what is paid in? Employee Insurance up over $417,401.00- every employer is facing the same challenge Salaries- Up over $1,255,372.00- one item, overtime, was over $254,000 in one year, mostly gang related investigations.
Get educated on the real story. The Standard Speaker should be reporting this story; the real question is why are they withholding it from its readers.
What happened to Hazleton City's revenue vs. expenses since 2004 and how did the City arrive at its financial position? The slide presentation will prove it wasn't mismanagement as some detractors state. Adjusted Revenue vs. Expenses tells the whole story. Real estate tax down by over $250,000.00- how does one mismanage real estate tax? No growth in Mercantile Tax- how does one mismanage what is paid? Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue down $225,758.00- again how does one mismanage what is paid in? Employee Insurance up over $417,401.00- every employer is facing the same challenge Salaries- Up over $1,255,372.00- one item, overtime, was over $254,000 in one year, mostly gang related investigations.
Get educated on the real story. The Standard Speaker should be reporting this story; the real question is why are they withholding it from its readers.
Legality of Using The Ordinance Feature Of A Referendum In Question
By definition ordinances are laws enacted by a municipal body that are not already covered by state or federal laws.
Since the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001 provides for the right of a municipality to takeover an authority's assets it would appear that a referendum to create a law that would prevent the sale of the assets of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority would contravene that law. Keep in mind that Hazleton City Council has yet to adopt a resolution or ordinance authorizing the sale of those assets therefore a referendum even if applicable would, at this point, seem premature. Any law enacted by referendum to supercede those powers granted by state law may end up being invalid.
In the case of Erie cited in the Referendum Handbook the voters stopped Erie from selling its water company to an authority. If one looks closely that sale is not covered under any state law per se. Therefore its application in this case is slightly different. Takeover of authority assets are covered by the Municipal Authorities Act, therefore, a signifcant legal question remains whether the referendum mechanism is a viable remedy for those opposed to the sale.
The bigger probelm comes from the opposition itself. Certain persons are self-proclaimed governement watchdogs, yet they want to use the Authority's solicitor as their own private attorney. Those in opposition need to seek outside counsel and prove that they are on legal ground, not just copy and paste something from the referendum handbook to validate their claims.
Since the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001 provides for the right of a municipality to takeover an authority's assets it would appear that a referendum to create a law that would prevent the sale of the assets of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority would contravene that law. Keep in mind that Hazleton City Council has yet to adopt a resolution or ordinance authorizing the sale of those assets therefore a referendum even if applicable would, at this point, seem premature. Any law enacted by referendum to supercede those powers granted by state law may end up being invalid.
In the case of Erie cited in the Referendum Handbook the voters stopped Erie from selling its water company to an authority. If one looks closely that sale is not covered under any state law per se. Therefore its application in this case is slightly different. Takeover of authority assets are covered by the Municipal Authorities Act, therefore, a signifcant legal question remains whether the referendum mechanism is a viable remedy for those opposed to the sale.
The bigger probelm comes from the opposition itself. Certain persons are self-proclaimed governement watchdogs, yet they want to use the Authority's solicitor as their own private attorney. Those in opposition need to seek outside counsel and prove that they are on legal ground, not just copy and paste something from the referendum handbook to validate their claims.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Aqua Water- Another Suitor Given Award
EPA Honors Aqua for Rebuilding Bristol Water Plant.
Date: Wednesday, May 9 2007
BRISTOL, Pa. -- Federal, state and local officials gathered here today as Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. (Aqua) accepted the 2006 Award for Sustainable Public Health Protection from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The award recognizes Aqua's efficient use of federal funding to rebuild the Bristol Water Treatment Plant, which supplies drinking water to approximately 30,000 local residents.
In presenting the award, Jon Capacasa, director of the Water Protection Division for EPA's mid-Atlantic region, said, "We applaud Aqua Pennsylvania for demonstrating outstanding leadership to protect the public's health by making critically needed improvements to the community's drinking water system."
Located in Bristol Borough, the plant began to provide service in 1874 and required a complete overhaul when Aqua acquired the municipal water system in 1996. The company invested approximately $10 million to rehabilitate and upgrade the facility, with $5.9 million of the total financed with a low-interest loan from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST).
EPA recognized Aqua on the recommendation of PENNVEST officials. "We proudly nominated Aqua for its ability and willingness to tackle the needs of neglected, troubled water systems, such as the Bristol facility, which require both the capital and expertise to bring them up to environmental standards," said PENNVEST Chairman Joseph Manko.
Aqua Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Nicholas DeBenedictis accepted the award. "This honor means a great deal to us, because it recognizes Aqua's commitment to addressing environmental issues and improving water quality. Furthermore, we take pride in using low-interest financing effectively to reduce interest expense, which helps control rates for customers while enabling us to address more capital improvement needs."
Aqua began the plant's overhaul in 1999 and completed the project in May 2001. Improvements included automating the filters and controls, installing equipment to remove solids from the water, upgrading chlorination and electrical systems, integrating a central computer system, and replacing leaking roofs. The project reduced the potential for filter failure and discharge of contaminants and eliminated structural safety hazards.
Among the dignitaries attending the ceremony were State Representative John Galloway (D-Bucks), Bristol Borough Council President Ralph DiGuiseppe and officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Under EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program, the agency provides grants to the states, which in turn, use the funds to provide low-interest loans for drinking water projects. These projects support the Safe Drinking Water Act by protecting public health. In Pennsylvania, the program is managed by PENNVEST in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Aqua provides water and wastewater services to approximately 1.4 million residents throughout Pennsylvania, including 1.3 million residents in Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Bucks and Berks counties. It is the largest subsidiary of Aqua America, Inc. (NYSE:WTR), the largest U.S.-based water and wastewater utility holding company serving customers in 13 states.
Date: Wednesday, May 9 2007
BRISTOL, Pa. -- Federal, state and local officials gathered here today as Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. (Aqua) accepted the 2006 Award for Sustainable Public Health Protection from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The award recognizes Aqua's efficient use of federal funding to rebuild the Bristol Water Treatment Plant, which supplies drinking water to approximately 30,000 local residents.
In presenting the award, Jon Capacasa, director of the Water Protection Division for EPA's mid-Atlantic region, said, "We applaud Aqua Pennsylvania for demonstrating outstanding leadership to protect the public's health by making critically needed improvements to the community's drinking water system."
Located in Bristol Borough, the plant began to provide service in 1874 and required a complete overhaul when Aqua acquired the municipal water system in 1996. The company invested approximately $10 million to rehabilitate and upgrade the facility, with $5.9 million of the total financed with a low-interest loan from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST).
EPA recognized Aqua on the recommendation of PENNVEST officials. "We proudly nominated Aqua for its ability and willingness to tackle the needs of neglected, troubled water systems, such as the Bristol facility, which require both the capital and expertise to bring them up to environmental standards," said PENNVEST Chairman Joseph Manko.
Aqua Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Nicholas DeBenedictis accepted the award. "This honor means a great deal to us, because it recognizes Aqua's commitment to addressing environmental issues and improving water quality. Furthermore, we take pride in using low-interest financing effectively to reduce interest expense, which helps control rates for customers while enabling us to address more capital improvement needs."
Aqua began the plant's overhaul in 1999 and completed the project in May 2001. Improvements included automating the filters and controls, installing equipment to remove solids from the water, upgrading chlorination and electrical systems, integrating a central computer system, and replacing leaking roofs. The project reduced the potential for filter failure and discharge of contaminants and eliminated structural safety hazards.
Among the dignitaries attending the ceremony were State Representative John Galloway (D-Bucks), Bristol Borough Council President Ralph DiGuiseppe and officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Under EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program, the agency provides grants to the states, which in turn, use the funds to provide low-interest loans for drinking water projects. These projects support the Safe Drinking Water Act by protecting public health. In Pennsylvania, the program is managed by PENNVEST in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Aqua provides water and wastewater services to approximately 1.4 million residents throughout Pennsylvania, including 1.3 million residents in Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Bucks and Berks counties. It is the largest subsidiary of Aqua America, Inc. (NYSE:WTR), the largest U.S.-based water and wastewater utility holding company serving customers in 13 states.
Petitioners Efforts At Ratepayers Expense
In today's Standard Speaker Mia Light writes about a request by Grace Cuozzo to have the Authority's solicitor pen a petition that would be legally correct so that signatures on it would constitute a referendum question allowed under the Third Class city code.
Cuozzo asked the HCA board to take the petition idea a step further by authorizing its solicitor to write an ordinance proposal - prohibiting the sale of the authority's assets - that could be placed at City Hall for citizens to sign, similar to a petition.
Cuozzo was referring to the "initiative and referendum" power that state law affords to citizens of a third-class city.
According to the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, the state's Third Class City Code gives voters a limited initiative and referendum power over ordinances, which allows them to propose ordinances to city council by petition.
The petition must be placed in the city clerk's office for 15 days and must be signed by a number of registered voters that equals at least 20 percent of all votes cast for the office of mayor at the preceding mayoral municipal election.
What is missing from this article is her additional request for advertising money so she could place an ad in the local newspaper to ask people to sign HER petition.
After Cuozzo presented the initiative and referendum idea to the HCA board, chairman Phil Andras asked her to put her proposal in writing and present it at the HCA board's Jan.. 14 meeting.
So to be clear Grace Cuozzo asks the Authority Board to loan her their solicitor so he could author a petition that contains legal language for her petition that she wants to place in City Hall to collect signatures. Then she wants the authority to foot the bill for her advertisement in the newspaper.
The question SOP has for the Authority Board, its solicitor, Grace Cuozzo, and Dee Deakos is where such authorization is contained in the Municipality Authorities Act to allow the board to fund an expenditure for a private person. What if those who want the sale to proceed approach the Board for the same help? Would the Board fund that endeavour? No matter how the Board felt on the sale it should have denied the request due to the nature of the funding it.
Under the Third Class City Code, the Board does not have the right to petition the voters about this issue. It is not the electorate. Therefore it is hard to rationalize the basis for it to fund a private initiative to petition Hazleton City Council and/or its voters.
From the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001:
§ 5607. PURPOSES AND POWERS.
(A) SCOPE OF PROJECTS PERMITTED.--EVERY AUTHORITY
INCORPORATED UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC AND SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF: FINANCING WORKING CAPITAL; ACQUIRING, HOLDING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING, OWNING OR LEASING, EITHER IN THE CAPACITY OF LESSOR OR LESSEE, PROJECTS OF THE FOLLOWING KIND AND CHARACTER; AND PROVIDING FINANCING FOR INSURANCE RESERVES:
From the Governor's Center For Local Government Services Municipal Authorities In Pennsylvania
Powers of the Authority
The Municipality Authorities Act specifies the rights and powers of the authority and vests them in the authority board. The board exercises these powers through its officers, employees and consultants. They include the following.
1. To exist for 50 years as a corporation.
2. To sue and be sued.
3. To adopt a corporate seal.
4. To acquire, hold, lease and use any property or franchise necessary or desirable for carrying out its
purpose, and to sell, lease or dispose of its property at any time.
5. To acquire projects by purchase, lease or otherwise and to construct, improve, maintain, repair and
operate projects.
6. To adopt bylaws for the management and regulation of its affairs.
7. To appoint officers, agents and employes, prescribe their duties and fix compensation.
8. To fix, alter, charge and collect reasonable and uniform rates and other charges in its service area and
to exclusively determine the services and improvements, including extensions, required to assure
adequate, safe and reasonable service.
9. To borrow money and issue notes, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness or obligations of the
authority.
10. To make contracts and execute all instruments necessary or convenient for carrying out its business.
11. To borrow money, accept grants from and enter into contracts, leases or other transactions with any
federal or state agency, any municipality, school district, corporation or authority.
12. To exercise the power of eminent domain.
13. To pledge or otherwise encumber the revenues or receipts of the authority as security for its
obligations.
14. To do anything necessary or convenient for promoting its business and the general welfare of the
authority and to carry out its legal powers.
15. To contract with any municipality, corporation or public authority of Pennsylvania or any adjoining
state for projects crossing state lines.
16. To enter into contracts to supply water and other services to municipalities not members of the
authority and to fix the amount to be paid.
17. To make assessments for sewer or water main construction and to charge tapping fees.
18. To make assessments for business improvements and administrative services.
19. To provide financing for insurance reserves.
20. To finance projects by making loans to nonprofit institutions and local government units.
17
21. To provide hospital, medical, disability and life insurance benefits and establish pension plans for its
employees.
22. To appoint police officers who have the same power as other peace officers within the property of the
authority, and to regulate vehicular traffic at airports
There is nothing in the purposes and powers permitting the Authority to finance a private person's legal expenses.
If Cuozzo and Deakos are so pationate about this issue they should either put up their own funds for legal advice and advertising money or try to raise it within the community. Authority money has no place to fund their private intiative even if it is to oppose the sale of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority.
Hazleton City Authority Board Members, why do you talk about reviving the Industrial Division when it was part of your duties as members of the board in the first place?
Cuozzo asked the HCA board to take the petition idea a step further by authorizing its solicitor to write an ordinance proposal - prohibiting the sale of the authority's assets - that could be placed at City Hall for citizens to sign, similar to a petition.
Cuozzo was referring to the "initiative and referendum" power that state law affords to citizens of a third-class city.
According to the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, the state's Third Class City Code gives voters a limited initiative and referendum power over ordinances, which allows them to propose ordinances to city council by petition.
The petition must be placed in the city clerk's office for 15 days and must be signed by a number of registered voters that equals at least 20 percent of all votes cast for the office of mayor at the preceding mayoral municipal election.
What is missing from this article is her additional request for advertising money so she could place an ad in the local newspaper to ask people to sign HER petition.
After Cuozzo presented the initiative and referendum idea to the HCA board, chairman Phil Andras asked her to put her proposal in writing and present it at the HCA board's Jan.. 14 meeting.
So to be clear Grace Cuozzo asks the Authority Board to loan her their solicitor so he could author a petition that contains legal language for her petition that she wants to place in City Hall to collect signatures. Then she wants the authority to foot the bill for her advertisement in the newspaper.
The question SOP has for the Authority Board, its solicitor, Grace Cuozzo, and Dee Deakos is where such authorization is contained in the Municipality Authorities Act to allow the board to fund an expenditure for a private person. What if those who want the sale to proceed approach the Board for the same help? Would the Board fund that endeavour? No matter how the Board felt on the sale it should have denied the request due to the nature of the funding it.
Under the Third Class City Code, the Board does not have the right to petition the voters about this issue. It is not the electorate. Therefore it is hard to rationalize the basis for it to fund a private initiative to petition Hazleton City Council and/or its voters.
From the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001:
§ 5607. PURPOSES AND POWERS.
(A) SCOPE OF PROJECTS PERMITTED.--EVERY AUTHORITY
INCORPORATED UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC AND SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF: FINANCING WORKING CAPITAL; ACQUIRING, HOLDING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING, OWNING OR LEASING, EITHER IN THE CAPACITY OF LESSOR OR LESSEE, PROJECTS OF THE FOLLOWING KIND AND CHARACTER; AND PROVIDING FINANCING FOR INSURANCE RESERVES:
From the Governor's Center For Local Government Services Municipal Authorities In Pennsylvania
Powers of the Authority
The Municipality Authorities Act specifies the rights and powers of the authority and vests them in the authority board. The board exercises these powers through its officers, employees and consultants. They include the following.
1. To exist for 50 years as a corporation.
2. To sue and be sued.
3. To adopt a corporate seal.
4. To acquire, hold, lease and use any property or franchise necessary or desirable for carrying out its
purpose, and to sell, lease or dispose of its property at any time.
5. To acquire projects by purchase, lease or otherwise and to construct, improve, maintain, repair and
operate projects.
6. To adopt bylaws for the management and regulation of its affairs.
7. To appoint officers, agents and employes, prescribe their duties and fix compensation.
8. To fix, alter, charge and collect reasonable and uniform rates and other charges in its service area and
to exclusively determine the services and improvements, including extensions, required to assure
adequate, safe and reasonable service.
9. To borrow money and issue notes, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness or obligations of the
authority.
10. To make contracts and execute all instruments necessary or convenient for carrying out its business.
11. To borrow money, accept grants from and enter into contracts, leases or other transactions with any
federal or state agency, any municipality, school district, corporation or authority.
12. To exercise the power of eminent domain.
13. To pledge or otherwise encumber the revenues or receipts of the authority as security for its
obligations.
14. To do anything necessary or convenient for promoting its business and the general welfare of the
authority and to carry out its legal powers.
15. To contract with any municipality, corporation or public authority of Pennsylvania or any adjoining
state for projects crossing state lines.
16. To enter into contracts to supply water and other services to municipalities not members of the
authority and to fix the amount to be paid.
17. To make assessments for sewer or water main construction and to charge tapping fees.
18. To make assessments for business improvements and administrative services.
19. To provide financing for insurance reserves.
20. To finance projects by making loans to nonprofit institutions and local government units.
17
21. To provide hospital, medical, disability and life insurance benefits and establish pension plans for its
employees.
22. To appoint police officers who have the same power as other peace officers within the property of the
authority, and to regulate vehicular traffic at airports
There is nothing in the purposes and powers permitting the Authority to finance a private person's legal expenses.
If Cuozzo and Deakos are so pationate about this issue they should either put up their own funds for legal advice and advertising money or try to raise it within the community. Authority money has no place to fund their private intiative even if it is to oppose the sale of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority.
Hazleton City Authority Board Members, why do you talk about reviving the Industrial Division when it was part of your duties as members of the board in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









