In the last post, I brought to your attention only one or two of the many "techniques" relied upon by our public officials--elected and appointed, to obfuscate the redundancies in budget(s) and to prevent following the trail of money through our 87 acres. Specifically, I brought to your attention that the Borough, in complying with state law which requires "closing" the next year's budget before that year actually begins, reports to us a $150,000 Boro budget, yet reports to the state a $550,000 budget.
However, that the Borough finances and Authority finances are separate from each other is a representation that borough officials made to us lowly taxpayers several times in the last year alone. For example, at the Oct. Borough Council meeting, a resident asked how the budget shortfall was going to be closed, and the council prez stated that the borough had "eliminated one full-time employee by transferring that person over to the Authority." Another such representation was made when, at the Nov. Council meeting, a resident asked for an exact number for the number of staff that the Borough has. The response was that "the borough has 5 full-time staff. The sixth guy is a temp." Now, go back in your own memories, and recall all the representations made to you, by boro officials, about the independence of the authority finances.
Next, also recall memories of your own experiences where various public officials told you of the "cost-sharing" going on here in our 87 acre/.2 mi campus. To support that recollection, if you turn to Chautuaqua budget information and financial reports, you'll see that they also admit that they are engaged in this "cost-sharing" with our public entities here.
Now, let's get down to business on this. Let's assume that there is indeed a "cost-sharing" arrangement between two or more parties here--and, that that arrangement explains the reporting differences in budgets. So, let's see how the Commonwealth, and its laws, come into play. Our first resource to look to is the Commonwealth's "position" on intergovernmental cooperation--specifically in this post, who can participant in such agreements, what forms they may take, and what powers come with each form. They published a whole manual on this topic--you can download it yourself at
http://www.newpa.com/get-local-gov-support/publications/index.aspx.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
In Pa, government bodies are encouraged to cooperate where efficiencies result in the delivery of services provided to the citizens. The parties can be neighboring municipalities, authorities, institutions, etc. Regardless of the form of the cooperation agreement, each party must be a governmental body.
Cooperation Agreements usually take one of the four major forms:
Handshake:
This form is usually used for non-repetitive and simple activities, like the use of a paver for a few days in exchange for the use of a dump truck for a few days.This type of agreement is only a form of cooperation—it is not an actual agreement or a contract with legal rights or responsibilities. Therefore, a handshake agreement does NOT convey the power to do things like acquire property, sign contracts, assume debt obligations, etc.
Act 177 (of 1996) Agreement:
This agreement is a contract between government entities. It requires enactment via ordinance and that a list of issues specified in the Act be determined and described. One agreement can not serve multiple functions—a separate agreement is needed for each function, unless a clearly stated multiple purpose agreement is created. Act 177 agreements are structured for either a provider/purchaser relationship, or for a joint program engaged in by the municipal parties. Examples of joint programs include regional police units, recreational programs, etc. A typical process for creating an Act 177 Agreement starts with representatives—elected or appointed officials, municipal staff, or appointed citizens, from each government body meeting as a “working” group to produce the ordinance and terms that will eventually be accepted by all parties. The agreement and terms are then presented to each party for enactment into an ordinance, and, if successfully enacted, the ordinance is attested to and signed by each government party’s authorized official.
Council of Governments:
This form of cooperation between government bodies is used to address broader subjects, and, can, for example, address the pursuit of two or more "joint programs." Because the COG is under no legal requirement to organize itself according to any specific procedure or into any specific structure, it must determine these issues as well as determine the details of the programs of the COG. Thus, the COG is both a form of cooperation and a “joint program” itself—a joint program addressing cooperation between the parties, among other joint programs. The COG is usually comprised of elected officials. The COG is really a third, albeit special, type of Act 177 agreement.
Joint Authority:
The Authorities of two or more municipalities are authorized, under Act 22 of 2001, to enter into a cooperative relationship and form one Municipal Authority. The two main reasons motivating such a cooperative arrangement is to facilitate the financing of major capital investments and the receipt of funds (usually grants) from federal agencies, like the EPA. However, a draw back to this cooperative form lies in that the Municipal Authority is not run by representatives of the participating municipalities, but by members appointed to the authority’s governing board. The process of appointment is to ensure that the Authority’s decision making power is independent of the municipalities' elected officials, providing the sort of checks and balances mechanism so diligently sought after by the original founders of our government structure and constitution. A Municipal Authority is vested with many powers, including signing contracts, selling bonds, and acquiring property.
Other forms of intergovernmental cooperation address:
Tax collection (example, the collection of Act 511 taxes, such as
earned income tax and per capita tax)
Transportation Partnerships (Act 47 of 1985)
Environmental Improvements (Act 39 of 1972)
Environmental Advisory Councils (Act 148 or 1973)
As applied to our situation, none of these arrangements supports an agreement--"cost-sharing" or otherwise, between the Chautauqua and either the Borough or Authority. Nor do they support a contract for the Borough to perform services, with borough staff and resources, for a homeowners association or a corporation, whether that non-governmental agency is located within these 87 acres or outside these 87 acres.
Also, it would seem as if any arrangement between a water/sewer authority and a borough would need to be entered in to via Act 177--ergo, as a joint program agreement or a COG, with its terms made clearly available for the taxpayer to see the subject matter of the agreement, the money trail, and the other pertinent details of the "exchange".
Let's also go back to the original idea behind intergovernment cooperation, and ask ourselves how any such agreements have resulted in an actual efficiency for us. Rather than allowing us to reduce our labor costs, our equipment costs, or our overhead, these "agreements" have really resulted in a relativley convoluted mechanism by which an extremely limited number of taxpayers are made to pay for a bloated full-time staff and an entire fleet of public works vehicles and earth-moving equipment--i.e. a public works infrstructure that a municipality of a thousand doesn't even have or justify. For example, rather than try to offset the costs of this staff and equipment with money-losing contracts for snow removal in other homeowners associations, isn't it more efficient to rid ourselves of the full-time staff-driver, his benefits burdens--including pension, the equipment acquisition costs, its maintanence costs, and the cost of materials and fuel by entering into our own $74/hour snow removal contract with someone else?
Thus concludes Chap. 1 of "Mt. Gretna's MOB (Morbidly Obese Budget(s))".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment