My phones have been ringing lately as constituents call and voice their opinion on House Bill 1500, which would assess a fee of $156 per person to pay for State Police protection in every municipality that does not have their own police force. I want to take a few minutes and give my thoughts on the idea.
First off, let me say I do not support House Bill 1500 as written. Second, I did not author or so-cosponsor the bill; the author is a State Representative from the Lancaster area. Third, there is no immediate danger of this bill becoming a law anytime soon; this whole hornet’s nest was stirred up by a publication clearly written by a statewide townships’ group.
As a clear sign of their irresponsibility, the article began by referring to the governor’s proposal to raise the personal income tax, which we defeated in the Legislature. The article then goes on to talk about House Bill 1500 as another way to take money from your pockets, which is pretty disingenuous since their first example never happened. But I digress…
There is no magical formula to determine whether a municipality should provide their own police coverage. There are many factors to consider, including the level of crime, population density, municipal budget and proximity to State Police facilities, just to name a few.
It also makes sense to look for alternatives. For example, is it possible to contract some police service from a neighboring municipality with their own police department? Or perhaps consider the idea of forming or joining a regional police force with nearby towns? I have experienced quite a bit of opposition to the idea of regional police departments, mainly because one town involved (and often all of them) seem to think they will be getting the short end of the stick. These territorial biases are deeply ingrained and very hard to shake.
I was recently talking to a group of constituents who were planning to stand outside the polls on Election Day and take a straw poll of voters. The question was simple. “Would you be in favor of a police officer in our township?” Like many polls, the question is inherently flawed. Unless you are a criminal, why wouldn’t you want a police officer in your town?
The question they need to be asking is the harder one. “Are you willing to pay for a police officer in our town, and if so, how much would you be willing to pay?” Police protection is not cheap. You have training, equipment, vehicle, administrative costs, insurance, salaries, benefits, pension costs and a whole bunch of other expenses I can’t even begin to fathom as I write this. It’s not something you can do just a little bit or only halfway.
The only way to build real public support on something as involved as starting a police department is to disclose the price tag up front and be prepared to weather the sticker shock. My admittedly unscientific guess is that many, if not most people living in our rural townships would ultimately not consider the benefit to be worth the costs involved.
But I could be 100% wrong, and there is certainly a real danger in trying to generalize on an issue like this, which is all the more reason why an idea like House Bill 1500 does not make sense for this area. Certain decisions should be left to our local municipal governments, especially decisions which involve big chunks of municipal tax dollars, and the issue of local police protection is a perfect example of such an idea.
The saga continues...
Nice article in today’s Almanac about the ongoing issues in Cecil Township.
White wants grant to go towards tap in fees
At the same time, White said that if the refund is not granted to homeowners, he will ask the Cecil Township Board of Supervisors to request the resignation of the municipal authority members.
In originally financing the project, the authority did not apply for state or federal grant funds or low-interest loans to reduce the cost to the affected residents, applications considered standard procedure for large-scale sewer and water projects. Subsequently, the Cecil Township Authority funded the Millers Run project exclusively through bond issuances, resulting in a tap-in fee for residents of $6,200, a figure much higher, even double in some instances, from those charged to new sewer customers in other projects in the region.
White said the manner in which funding for the project was structured caused an uproar among residents in the Millers Run service area. Their avenues of protest included contacting White, who immediately took up their cause.
Under pressure from White and the Millers Run residents, the authority made a request to the Commonwealth Financing Authority for a grant, and a $5 million award was announced in July.
White is concerned that rather than refund the excess portion of the tap-in fee to Millers Run customers, the authority may apply the grant to other projects.
“Using the money for anything other than reimbursing the Millers Run customers for the thousands of dollars extra they paid to tap in would be an unconscionable rip-off,” White said. “A refund is exactly what I had in mind when I gave my support for the CFA grant applications last year, not to let the authority pillage the pocketbooks of Millers Run homeowners to finance projects elsewhere.”
If the Cecil Township Municipal Authority decides in favor of substantial refunds to Millers Run homeowners, White pledged to work with the authority and Millers Run homeowners to bring it about.
At the same time, White vowed that if the authority fails to provide a proper refund, he will ask the Cecil Township Board of Supervisors to ask for the resignation of the authority members, or that they consider abolishing the authority and undertake its duties, including the authorization of a Millers Run refund.
“This $5 million grant is the last chance for the municipal authority to do right by the people affected by the mishandling of the Millers Run project,” White said.
“They can end the controversy now, or we will continue to fight so that the right thing is done for the people who have entrusted me to stand up for them in office.
“I cannot think of another occasion where the collective will of the people has come through this loud and clear, and one way or another, we will prevail.”
White said that within the next couple weeks, he will provide the impacted Cecil Township homeowners with additional written details of his continuing work to rectify the unfair tap-in fees.
Copyright Observer Publishing Co.
11/4/2009 4:49 AM
State Rep. Jesse White, D-Cecil is asking that the Cecil Township Municipal Authority use a recent state grant to refund much of the “exorbitant” tap-in fee charged to customers to hook into the Millers Run sewer project.
In addition to going to Harrisburg and dealing with constituent issues back home, I am also in charge of staffing and running my district offices in Cecil, Washington and Burgettstown. For most people, the first and sometimes only impression they get about me is their experience with constituent services, so it’s important that I have a staff that will put their best face forward and show an essential willingness to get to the bottom of an issue.
Since I took office in 2007, my Burgettstown district office has been located at 1541 Main Street, across the street from the Post Office. Although the office has served us well, we have decided to move to a newer office, located at 1425 Burgettstown Plaza, right next to FamCare. It will be pretty hard to miss the big yellow sign when you come into Burgettstown. We will be hosting a formal Open House event soon, but please take a second to stop in and say hello.
The change in office locations also coincides with another major change. Patty Neil, who managed the Burgettstown office for the past year, has taken an opportunity with the Washington County Redevelopment Authority and will be leaving very soon. Patty is a warm, wonderful woman and I wish her nothing but the best in her new job. She will be missed.
When you do stop in, don’t be surprised if you see a familiar face smiling back at you. Patty’s departure created perhaps the easiest staffing problem I’ve ever been confronted with. I immediately called Jeanne Vega, who managed the Burgettstown office for the first two years. Jeanne gladly agreed to come back, and she should be formally on board within a matter of days.
You may be wondering why anyone should care about who is answering the phone in my office, but it is truly a vitally important part of what I do. I don’t have many rules for my staff; I believe in giving them broad instructions and letting them do their jobs their own way. But the one guiding principle I expect from everyone working for me is to have right kind of mindset in dealing with constituent problems.
Too often, people call some government office or another with a problem, and the person on the other end of the phone does everything in their power to push them off on someone else. When confronted with a challenge, I want my people to find a way to say “yes” instead of saying “no”. Even if it’s a problem we cannot directly deal with, I want to follow up to make sure whoever we refer you to take care of the issue.
It’s not always as easy as it sounds. Many constituents have problems that simply cannot be solved, or may require extensive legal action on their part. Others are unwilling to believe what we tell them, and decide to call back every few days in the odd belief that our answer will miraculously change. At the end of the day, all we can do is our best, which I think is all you can ask of anyone.
I have been a slacker on this blog lately, but I do have a somewhat legitimate excuse. I’m in the final stages of moving the whole blog and incorporating it with a ton of other stuff in a brand new site, so keep your pants on.
In the interim, here’s a little something to feast your eyes upon, inspired by a dream I had last night the the Secretary of State publicly recognized my (fictional) love of Sizzler. Don’t ask; I can’t explain it either.
Somewhere in the 46th District needs water? You got it, Mr. Henry Winkler!
More potentially great infrastructure news in the 46th. After literally years of work, there is a proposed settlement agreement to bring public water service to approximately 60 residents in Mt. Pleasant and Avella, including the Meadowcroft Rockshelter.
See all that wood? Is it just me, or does it seem almost crazy not to have water available in case of a fire?
The proposed settlement between the Office of the Consumer Advocate and Pennsylvania American Water Company, which can be found online here, still needs the approval of an Administrative Law Judge, but I am hopeful that we will soon have water flowing to yet another rural area of my district at very little cost to the residents.
I would be remiss if I didn’t give special recognition to Mr. John Adams, whose tireless lobbying on this issue since before I was even elected cannot be ignored. John is living proof that sometimes the squeaky wheel does in fact get the grease. When I think of John’s efforts, I can think of no more fitting quote:
Yes you can, John. Yes you can.
You know you live in a rural area when a new place to grab a sandwich is newsworthy.
Whatever. If someone put a Cold Cut Combo in front of you, you'd be thrilled beyond words. Don't deny it.
Tonight I stopped down at the new Subway sandwich shop in Hickory, near the intersection of Routes 50 and 18. Located minutes from my office in Cecil, the restaurant is the first phase of a new development by my friend and constituent, Rick Walsh.
Rick Walsh = Good guy and mastermind behind an army of Sandwich Artists
Rick told me that his shop has created fifteen new jobs, which is nothing to sneeze at these days. As the economy struggles, any time new small businesses open is a cause for celebration.
By the way, I was serious about the Carl Weathers thing. If anyone sees him, let him know the 46th Legislative District is an alligator-free zone.
What a human.
After 101 days, Pennsylvania finally has a state budget.
Interesting perspective from Brad Bumstead of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, particularly in regards to the role played by rank-and-file members in the process.
Broken Budget Trust
Long-term relations between the House and Senate were severely damaged by the budget battle, casting a cloud over future action on efforts to cap electric rates, next year’s budget and trying to stem the impact of spiking pension costs in two years.
It all goes back to the budget deal reached Sept. 18 by Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell, Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats and House Democrats. House Republicans wanted no part of it.
That deal relied, in part, on levying the sales tax on cultural and other attractions and also included a new tax — a 20 percent levy on small games of chance operated by volunteer fire companies, VFW’s and social clubs with liquor licenses.
The arts tax was especially difficult for Rendell to swallow. The arts community in Philadelphia is one of his personal favorites. As Philadelphia mayor, he helped create the “Avenue of the Arts.”
But he agreed to the tax. They all agreed. And that was the problem.
In the interest of getting a budget done, new House Democrat negotiators, Speaker Keith McCall of Carbon County and Majority Leader Todd Eachus of Luzerne County, inexplicably signed off on the deal.
Both taxes, for the most part, hit Democrat constituencies.
McCall and Eachus faced a full-scale revolt in their caucus over those measures as well as a plan to lease state forest land for natural gas drilling.
Rep. David Levdansky, D-Elizabeth, would later call the small games tax a “Republican Trojan horse.”
Leaders were told “no” in no uncertain terms.
So the House Democrats broke the deal and sent the Senate a tax bill that eliminated the arts tax and small-games tax. The House Ds put in poison pills for the Senate, taxing smokeless tobacco and cigars and taxing natural gas extraction. Those two were ignored in the final agreement.
Senate Republican leaders and Senate Democrat leaders, and Rendell, were furious.
They had hung themselves out there on controversial taxes. In the end, Senate GOP leaders Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, and Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, felt far more comfortable dealing with Senate Dems and Rendell than the House Dems.
In fact, they didn’t want to deal with them at all. Senate Democrat leaders felt the same.
Some think this is petty. You’re nearing 100 days without a budget and egos and pride get in the way.
But part of the culture in the Legislature is that your word is your bond.
Eachus said they had no choice based on their caucus’s reaction. That’s true. But what galled the other leaders is that Eachus and McCall didn’t come back to them and say, “This won’t work. Help us out.”
House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, knows how to do a deal, one leader told me. These guys don’t.
Looking at it from another point of view, it could be argued that what happened in the House Democratic Caucus is healthier for democracy. In years past, rank-and-file members would have had to swallow the deal, like it or not.
Some would argue the end product, without any of those four taxes, is better.
That also might be true. But this is only one budget and a lot of work in the future might be jeopardized.
Thanks for destroying my hopes and dreams, Schoolhouse Rock.
With the unbelievable procedural Olympics going on with the dueling, never-ending budget saga, I thought I would offer up a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law, courtesy of Schoolhouse Rock.
Oddly enough, I watched it like three times and couldn’t find anything about what happens when the Conference Committee discharges the budget bill because the two chambers can’t agree on the process by which the state budget should be passed, and how to convince the Senate to eliminate WAM’s in their version of the bill. Maybe I just need to watch it again.
I'm talking about people respecting the municipal authority on which they serve, not my own personal authority, which is tragically limited.
Today, I formally requested an investigation by state Auditor General Jack Wagner of the Hanover Township Municipal Authority for actions I find to be repulsive and unacceptable.
It has recently come to my attention that a board member, who is an appointed official, billed the authority $20 per hour for his services, including customer service calls to residents and meetings to discuss sewage issues.
Something just doesn’t smell right here, even for a municipal authority. The task of an appointed official is to serve the community, and these questionable expenses for services that appear to be a standard part of the job description raise serious concerns for me, and for many other residents.
While I lack the authority to determine the legality of such actions, common sense tells me this blatant disregard for taxpayer money borders somewhere between unethical and unbelievable.
I am committed to seeing this sewage project through to completion, but I would like the municipal authority’s operations to be open and the board to be accountable to all residents.
I also remain committed to overall municipal authority reform, and have recently introduced three bills in the state legislature that would improve authority operations:
- House Bill 1715 would require municipal authorities that are eligible to apply for any state and federal funding available for projects in excess of $1 million, and to provide public notice of the application.
- House Bill 1716 would permit the state auditor general to conduct performance audits of municipal authorities.
- House Bill 1717 would require authorities to offer an installment payment plan at a fixed rate of interest when tap-in or other similar fees for property owners exceed $1,000.
All three measures are currently being considered in the House Local Government Committee.
I have a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Observer-Reporter.
Here is the original letter that prompted my response:
Voters put these boobs in office
9/20/2009 3:33 AM
Let’s have a show of hands. How many of you believe that the date when the budget for the Commonwealth expires is a secret, revealed to lawmakers only at the last minute? If your answer is no, why then do we wind up year after year, for weeks or months, without a new budget? I am sick of hearing state Republicans whine about Democratic proposals, and Democrats whining about Republican proposals, while they ignore the voters.
The citizens of Pennsylvania are suffering, again, and all we get from Harrisburg is posturing. From the governor on down, the politicians are more concerned about their party, and themselves, than they are about us. We have no budget because they just don’t want to do it yet, for various personal reasons, and our needs have become a secondary consideration.
It is time for the voters to say, “Enough is enough!” Tell them all, every single one of those self-serving politicians, that you will not vote for them again. Then, when the next election rolls around, remember this mess and refuse to accept business as usual. Be sure to tell your friends as well.
I do not care how many hands they shake, birthday cards they send to grandmothers, or senior health-care expos to which they attach their names. They continue to betray our trust and ignore us. Yet, many of our representatives run for re-election unopposed. If only 45 percent of us continue to vote, and many of those simply pick the people already in office, we deserve not to have a new budget on time every year, and we have no right to complain.
Make no mistake – we put these boobs in office and we let them stay.
Stan Myers
Washington
And here is the response that ran today:
This boob was doing his job
9/25/2009 3:32 AM
As a former W&J student of Stan Myers who now serves as one of the “boobs” in the State Legislature, I feel obligated to respond to his recent letter.
When elected in 2006, I had a clear mandate to shake up the status quo in Harrisburg by standing up for my constituents. As the economy collapsed, it became clear this would be a very tough budget year, and different factions developed across party, regional and ideological lines.
Gov. Rendell wanted to raise income taxes to fund his initiatives. Senate Republicans wanted to cut those programs down to virtually nothing, decimating jobs and social services. Southeast
Democrats pushed to increase social spending, while we in the Southwest heard the cry of “no new taxes” loud and clear. House Republicans, the minority party, railed against everything for political purposes.
Despite conventional wisdom that “everyone up there is in cahoots,” there hasn’t been much agreement about anything in Harrisburg. There was something reaffirming about the stalemate; a silver lining to a very dark cloud. Every representative engaged and advocated for our constituencies. Slowly, we worked toward a bipartisan compromise.
House Democrats convinced the governor to scrap his proposed income tax increase. The Senate Republicans gave in on legalizing table games to generate revenue. Everyone gave a little until a budget came together.
Look at the finished product. We cut over $2 billion in spending, filled a $3.5 billion hole and balanced the budget for next year without a sales or income tax increase. We spent less money than last year.
In a state as economically and socially diverse as Pennsylvania, finding a balance is difficult when times are good; it was nearly impossible this summer. The stalemate wasn’t because none of us cared, but because we care so much about how our hometowns, schools and libraries will be affected by the decisions we make as a legislature.
Jesse White
Cecil Township
The writer is the state representative for the 46th District.
