Mt. Lebanon is getting some resistance to their new stormwater fee, according to the Trib. St. Bernard, St. Winifred, and Seton-La Salle are withholding their payment since they are non-profits and feel that they are exempt from the "rainwater tax."
Mt. Lebanon nonprofits withhold new fee
9 comments:
To quote Mt. Lebanon Commissioner David Brumfield:
"St. Bernard's is an example of the entities we wanted this to apply to. It's just a giant, paved funnel at the top of a hill. ... I'd imagine a whole lot of water runs down Scott Road toward the residences there."
So, Mt Lebanon is going to give that money to Dormont (since the residences at the bottom of that giant funnel are in Dormont)?
That's rather charitable of Mt Lebanon. I wasn't aware of such charitable actions.
*A tax disguised as a fee* was the basic theme of early public complaints against this stormwater scheme. The Muni hired a consultant for around $80,000 to structure and wordsmith this as a separate "Utility" with a dedicated *fee* based on impervious surface areas of both taxable and tax exempt real estate property. The precise wordsmithing was apparently based on caselaw to prevent /defend against legal challenge by those to whom the fee was to be imposed.
The resulting enacting Muni ordinance and discount manual were reportedly also wordsmithed to accomplish the same defensive end result.
Therefore it seems that the named nonprofit tax exempt entities, as well as others similarly situated, will have to file successful lawsuits in order to prevail, or face the detailed nonpayment recovery steps and methods developed for just this program by Mt. Lebanon.
What is interesting about all this is that a sanitary sewer surcharge fee has been imposed on all taxable and nontaxable property owners by Lebo and Alcosan for decades ; and, which for the last number of years has been charged & collected in behalf of both by PA American Water Co. (PAWC) without known or greatly publicized opposition. It's all there in your monthly bills. There is even an additional collection fee.
The Federal EPA 308 Consent Decree some 10-years or so ago resulted in the fees being increased substantially...now at $8.09/1,000 gal. of water used. Lebo faces way over $28 million more in necessary sanitary sewer *fixes* and Alcosan in the billions. Be Prepared. The storm sewer fees can increase over time as well.
It's all about the deterioration of aged infrastructure....locally and nationwide...coupled with increasing user & public health & enviornmental demands and regulations.
Just one residents thoughts.
Bill Lewis
My church sits at the top of a hill, so I will be following this one, for sure.
I wonder if Seton-La Salle got an education credit, like Mt. Lebanon did.
Maybe we can forget the development of McNeilly Park and concentrate on our stormwater situation. Did you just hear that gasp from the sports groups?
Elaine
I've been told that the PA Local Tax Enabling Act does not allow taxing bodies to enact a tax for things like storm water problem solving...therefore it has to be a fee. And, of course, there is that little problem that you can't tax tax exempts. And, all users should pay....and so on.
Bill Lewis
Whom does Commissioner Blumfield think these entities are? God? Some big corporation? Some obscure lottery winner?
A large amount of the money/income these "entities" have comes from the same people's pockets that he's already dug into on their private residences!
Just one more way to continue to tax and spend, tax and spend-- with little regard for where the dollars come from.
So they'll borrow $3.5 million to build another park and in a few years demand more money to fund its upkeep which they didn't factor in!
They've (commissioners/school board) been negligent in maintaining the current infrastructure, but will run about willy nilly buying more property and building more stuff!
Dick Saunders
It sounds like the PA Local Tax Enabling Act is the real reason for the "fee." Give it a different name and then it is OK.
I am disappointed.
Elaine
Here is the link. PA Local Tax Enabling Act
What people do not realize is that there is already an approved budget decision unit in the 2011 operating or general fund budget for routine storm water line inspection & repair...about $119,000. Although not specifically indicated as such, as is the case with most budget line items, this cost is and has been for years paid for with local tax revenues.
The storm water utility *fee* is intended to address major storm water problems of a capital cost rather than routine maintenance cost nature that already exist and are foreseen for which funding was not (made) available; and, such *fixes* will eventually likely be mandated by the EPA and/or other governmental regulatory bodies, as has been the case in our sanitary sewers.
Bill Lewis
how many of you are going to fight it. and say NO, I will not pay this TAX....It's time to get rid of David Brumfield, and the rest of the cronies............
Post a Comment