CLEARFIELD – An advisory committee’s minority members are countering the claims that the proposed Treasure Lake Borough would be “undesirable” and recommending a voter referendum for incorporation.
This case has been pending for four years and heavily litigated. By order dated Sept. 24, the court appointed Peter Smith to serve as the chairperson of the Borough Advisory Committee.
The court appointed Brady LaBorde and Mark Sullivan to serve as recommended by Sandy Township. It appointed Jason S. Gray Jr. and Robert M. Hanak, Esq. to serve as recommended by Treasure Lake.
The majority’s 23-page recommendation was written by Smith, a Clearfield attorney, and he was joined by LaBorde and Sullivan, both Sandy Township representatives. Gray and Hanak disagreed with the committee majority’s conclusion and filed a nine-page dissenting report, which opposed the majority’s conclusion that the plans would be disadvantageous to both Sandy Township and Treasure Lake.
Now, Treasure Lake’s future is in the hands of Clearfield County President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman. He must determine whether or not to accept the recommendation as presented by the committee majority.
In their dissenting report, Gray and Hanak wrote that on Sept. 25, 2008, the board of directors of Treasure Lake Property Owners Association filed a petition for incorporation as a borough with the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas. It contained 1,251 signatures, which represented 59 percent of Treasure Lake resident freeholders with ownership of more than 73 percent of the total acreage of Treasure Lake.
The committee minority wrote the aforementioned figures substantially exceeded the minimum code requirements of majority in each of these categories. The petition’s validity was confirmed by the court on Sept. 29, 2009, later upheld by the Commonwealth Court of Appeals and denied appeal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
“Withstanding the scrutiny of procedure by the courts and surpassing the requirement of majority by a substantial margin, the petition carries a strong message of overwhelming support to bring the question to the ballot,” the committee minority wrote.
“It clearly suggests that a significant majority of Treasure Lake residents are dissatisfied with the municipal government of Sandy Township and wish to establish a more responsive form of government to address their particular needs and goals. The significance of this mandate is never addressed in the written opinion of the committee majority.”
Gray and Hanak expressed great concern with their opponent’s relative disregard of the inherent inequity for Treasure Lake residents and property owners in paying municipal taxes for limited services. They wrote this shouldn’t be characterized as “double taxation” as referenced by the committee majority but rather as “paying twice for the same services.” Further, they explained that Treasure Lake taxpayers are assessed for a service they cannot receive and then pay for it again in the form of property owner assessments.
They wrote that the state’s legislature recognizes the inequity, as evidenced by the fact that from 2009 through 2011 more than 60 bills and resolutions were introduced in the state House and Senate to address the problem.
Although a newly-created borough would be restricted under current law, as is Sandy Township, from maintaining private roads, Gray and Hanak wrote that taxpayers wouldn’t be paying for a “phantom service.” They wrote that new options would subsequently be available to the new borough to either lower taxes or expand existing services.
The committee minority wrote another concern not given weight by their opponents is that borough incorporation gives Treasure Lake a voice in regional discussions regarding cooperation, shared services and coordinated planning. This, according to the committee minority, is both appropriate and deserved. The committee minority wrote that the state’s Municipal Planning Code not only encourages such cooperation and implementation of comprehensive planning, but through its broader definition of regionalism, it also presents a case counter to the committee majority’s conclusion that Treasure Lake Borough would not comply with the state’s Fair Share Doctrine.
According to the committee minority, the code states that municipalities shouldn’t be required to be self-sustaining. They may supply one or more economic, social, educational or health care segments to meet the legitimate needs of all categories of residents of the broader regional community.
In addition, Gray and Hanak wrote that Treasure Lake residents have the right, which is currently denied, to a legitimate voice in local government. Since the voters in Treasure Lake are a significant minority of the voters in Sandy Township as a whole, Gray and Hanak wrote they cannot elect representatives, such as Sandy Township Supervisors, to represent their particular needs and concerns.
“Borough incorporation would create a smaller, more responsive local government for Treasure Lake residents with direct election of representatives to that government structure,” wrote the committee minority.
Gray and Hanak wrote the committee majority’s conclusion that Treasure Lake Borough would lead to duplication, inefficiency and higher taxes for Treasure Lake property owners is not supported by fact and logic. They wrote that expert witnesses from both sides agreed that the estimated revenue for the new borough would be approximately $1.3 million. They wrote this produces operational surpluses and estimated that the combined surpluses of the new borough and the TLPOA would initially be $649,000.
“That certainly suggests that either taxes or assessments or both could be reduced. Alternatively, it also suggests that the combined services of both could be enhanced,” wrote Gray and Hanak.
The committee minority wrote their opponents believed Treasure Lake residents would experience a significant decline in scope and quality of municipal services, especially police protection. They wrote this conclusion would be warranted if the assumption is that Treasure Lake would rely upon the Pennsylvania State Police solely to provide such protection.
Gray and Hanak wrote it’s their opinion to form a borough police force is the preferred course and would significantly enhance police protection currently supplied by Sandy Township. They wrote police protection would have an estimated cost of $600,000, which they indicated is well within the means of estimated revenue stream for the proposed borough. They wrote that police services would not be duplicated but expanded.
They wrote the committee majority argues that Treasure Lake Borough would rely on and derive benefit from Sandy Township’s public infrastructure and resources. However, they countered that this is true of all communities that are interlinked by road systems and share municipal, state and federal resources. They also outlined points under the committee majority’s “Findings of Fact,” which they wrote were not facts but “unsubstantiated opinions.”
Gray and Hanak recommended the certification of the question of proposed borough incorporation for referendum vote of the residents of the proposed borough. Like the committee majority, they agreed to an immediate end to the continuing litigation.
Further, if approved, they recommend that the board of directors of the TLPOA consider removing the gate for entrance to the community. Restriction of public access would be limited solely to uses of lakes and beaches and could be enforced by patrol of TLPOA personnel.
It also recommended that the board of directors of the TLPOA develop in greater detail the plan for the structure, organization and operation of the new borough.