CLEARFIELD – Talks of consolidating two local municipalities continued Wednesday night at the Clearfield Area Junior-Senior High School.
Members of a joint committee, made up of representatives who live or work in Clearfield Borough or Lawrence Township, along with representatives from the Pennsylvania Economy League presented information to the public regarding an Early Intervention Program consolidation study.
The township and the borough received a grant from the state Department of Economic Development to study the feasibility of consolidating both municipalities. The overview of the study and initial information was presented at the meeting.
Serving on the joint committee are Barbara Shaffner, Jeff Williams, Mark Breakey, Joan Robinson-McMillen, Randy Lemmo, James Moyer, Jim Schell, Joan Shimmel, C. Alan Walker, Terry Struble and co-chairmen Brian Lytle and Bill Lawhead. Representing PEL were Joe Boyle, Gerry Cross, Harry Miller and Lynne Shedlock.
Lawhead and Lytle opened the meeting. Lytle said the committee has been meeting once a month since the spring and feels the time has come to present information to the public. Lytle said the committee has been gathering information but there is still a long way to go before a decision is made.
“It’s only theoretical at this point,” Lytle said. “The committee will make recommendations, and those recommendations will be proposed to the Lawrence Township Supervisors and the Clearfield Borough Council.”
Cross began the presentation by giving an overview of the Pennsylvania Economy League. He said the PEL works with public and private sectors from regionally-based offices across the state. Cross said PEL’s goal is to create a knowledgeable corporate and civic community that will help ensure the economic competitiveness of the state and its regions.
Cross said the borough and the township received a grant to study consolidating both municipalities under the Home Rule form of government.
According to the Governor’s Center for Local Government’s Web site, Home Rule transfers the authority to act in municipal affairs from state law, to a local charter, which is adopted and amended by the voters. A county, borough or township choosing Home Rule can tailor its government organization and powers to suit its specific needs.
An elected government study commission would draft the Home Rule Charter, which would act as a local constitution. The charter would be the framework for the local governing body to use to adopt, adapt and administer legislation and regulations for conducting business, expanding citizen participation and the creation of sustainable communities.
However, according to the Governor’s Center, Home Rule has not been fully tested as a tool to revolutionize local, democratic decision-making, but it has the potential to open up a path to community self-governance.
According to the Governor’s Center, Home Rule municipalities are still subject to the restrictions found in the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Presently, there are six counties, 19 cities, 19 boroughs and 27 townships operating under Home Rule.
Cross said the joint committee was appointed with representatives from both municipalities to make recommendations, to develop a joint agreement for the consolidated municipality and to draft the Home Rule Charter. PEL was brought in to assist in the process.
The committee began holding meetings with PEL in the spring of 2015. The members received basic information on various issues that must be decided as part of the process. PEL conducted the initial review on feasibility of consolidation. Cross stressed that no decisions have been made at this point, other than to continue to move forward with the process.
Cross also stressed that a consolidation and a merger are very different. He said under a consolidation, both municipalities no longer exist and a new municipality is formed. Under a merger, one municipality absorbs the other.
Cross said there is a two-step process required for approval of the joint agreement and the Home Rule Charter. Both governing bodies of both municipalities have to agree to consolidate.
If one municipality is in favor of the consolidation and the second is against, the consolidation cannot move forward. If both municipalities agree, the decision must then be approved by a voter referendum.
If voters in one municipality are in favor of the consolidation, while voters in the second are against, the consolidation will fail.
Cross said advantages of Home Rule include a flexibility in defining structure, powers and function of the municipality, a flexibility on taxes, a government created to meet the citizen’s particular needs and a shift in responsibility from state legislature (such as a municipal code) to local citizens through the charter.
Cross said both municipalities have similar populations, budgets, tax bases and public services. He said the consolidation could provide improved services; a potential for the reduction in real estate taxes; increased citizen representation and participation; additional aid and the potential for increased federal and state funds as a larger community; and a more sustainable community.
Cross said PEL will continue to work to complete the Early Intervention Program Report. The report will include a financial and management review of each municipality and a recommendation for or against consolidation. PEL also provides an impartial review of the information.
Cross said the joint committee will continue to study the size, terms and qualifications of the governing body of the consolidated municipality; if the constituents will be represented under a district-style or combination style government; financial arrangements, budget schedules and formats; the appointment of a manager, the manager’s qualifications and method of appointment and removal; and a transition plan for the consolidated municipality as well as the name.
Cross stressed that the committee will work under the assumption of no reduction of full-time staff from either municipality.
Cross said both municipalities have restrictions, which indicate future financial issues. Clearfield Borough, at 25 mills, is nearing the property tax rate maximum and has limited room to expand the tax-base. Lawrence Township, at 18 mills, is over the property tax rate maximum, but does have room to expand the tax base. He said action is needed before financial problems develop.
Cross said state law determines how municipalities can raise revenue for services. Municipalities can use property taxes or earned income taxes. Rates for both are capped by state law.
Home Rule will remove the state tax caps and give a municipality the ability to lower property taxes on all residents by adjusting earned income taxes and other tax rates.
Cross said tax reduction on commercial properties can spur economic development; wage-earning property owners will pay smaller amounts over time instead of one large lump sum; and retirees with no wages will see an overall tax relief.
Cross said doubling the earned income tax would reduce property taxes by more than half.
Cross said the joint committee will hold regular public meetings to determine recommendations for the Joint Agreement and the Home Rule Charter on the fourth Tuesday of the month from 3:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. at the Clearfield Borough Administration Building and encouraged the public to participate.
During the question and answer period, resident James Kling asked when the public meetings would start. Lawhead said the committee is hoping to start in November.
Resident Ron Lizotte asked if the state can force the consolidation if it is voted down. Cross said no. He said if the referendum question is rejected, it cannot be put on the ballot in the same form for five years.
Resident Todd Kling asked what the goal of the committee was. Lytle said his personal long-term goal was to make Clearfield a vibrant, viable community and to create opportunity for growth for future generations. He said his short-term goal is to create a product, which will serve to bring about his long-term goal.
Resident Tom Evans asked if the borough and the township had to consolidate in order to operate under Home Rule or if it is something they could do on their own. Cross said a municipality has the option to enact Home Rule, but the process can be “more cumbersome,” and the borough has little options for an expansion in their tax base.
Another resident asked about police and fire protection. Cross said the committee would have to examine the police protection, but the fire departments in both municipalities are volunteer and non-profit. He said the fire protection is not a function of the municipality, although the municipalities own some of the equipment and buildings used by the fire departments.
Resident Mark McCracken asked about a time-line for the proposed consolidation. Cross said the committee is hoping to have a referendum ready for next year’s general election in November.
Resident Todd Kling asked about the demand of services in both municipalities, such as snow removal and leaf pick-up. He asked who would be responsible for solving these problems. He said the residents deserve to have these services provided 100 percent for everyone, not just certain areas. Kling also asked how public services, education, job creation and recreation will be improved by the consolidation.
Walker said all municipalities in the state are facing the same problems. He said a larger municipality will have more voters, which gives the municipality a greater voice and will garner more attention from state government. It will provide for lower property taxes and one voice representing the entire community. He said it was vital to avoid having the state come in and take over.
Other residents were concerned about the time the meetings had been scheduled, as many would still be at work. Lawhead and Cross said the committee would consider changing the meeting times, but Cross said he had recommended the earlier times to keep the meetings from running too late in the evenings.