Core Communities in Crisis Task Force
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CORE COMMUNITIES IN CRISIS TASK FORCE Powers and Limitations Subgroup Meeting Notes Wyndham Pittsburgh at University Place August 23, 2010
I. Identification of Problem
1. Limitations on Revenue:
A. Lack of diversification of revenue sources B. Current tax rates limited and outdated C. High percentage of tax-exempt properties D. Inability to consolidate or annex neighboring municipalities
2. Declining Revenues:
A. Declining commercial tax base B. Rising service and personnel costs not keeping pace with revenues C. Loss of jobs and tax revenue due to economy
3. Service Demands:
A. Requirements to continue to provide necessary services B. Inability to reduce services because of contractual demands C. Inability to recover costs of services to neighboring municipalities D. Services for tax-exempt properties
4. Lack of Awareness:
A. Lack of connection between Legislature and municipalities B. Public disinterest and lack of understanding of municipal functions, limitations, and demands C. Lack of recognition that these problems are state-wide and occurring in all classes of municipalities
5. Lack of Interest in Home Rule and Consolidation:
A. Only 71 municipalities have adopted Home Rule charters since available in early 1970s.
B. Very few consolidations. Since1975, 22 proposals for consolidation or merger of municipalities have been placed on the ballot, with only 8 approved by voters.
II. Solutions to Problems
1. Limitations on Revenue:
A. Allow municipalities to be like school districts with no caps. B. Develop a long term plan to convene a Constitutional Convention to address consolidation. C. Pursue interpretation of language in Constitution that refers to “area government”.
2. Declining Revenues:
A. Institute user fees uniformly as an option, which are permissible if applied uniformly.
3. Service Demands:
A. Work together with suburban core communities to discuss consolidation of services. B. Use commonalities of shared problems among communities to bring together to work on joint solutions. C. Legislate a fee for municipalities that utilize State Police services. D. Provide revenue to municipalities for “in lieu of tax payments” for non-profits.
4. Lack of Awareness:
A. Need to engage the business community in driving change with the legislature.
5. Lack of Interest in Home Rule and Consolidation:
A. Simplify the process of Home Rule adoption. B. Automatically provide Home Rule status to consolidated municipalities.
III. Ideas and suggestions from staff and Bill Hansell
1. Limitations on Revenue:
A. Change the formula for sharing the EIT from 50/50 to 75/25 with the municipality of employment receiving the larger share B. Broaden the authority of home rule municipalities to increase the limits on tax rates or give local discretion to set rates
2. Declining Revenues:
A. Passage of the Optional County Sales Tax
3. Service Demands:
A. PLCM should promote a Constitutional amendment to prohibit unfunded mandates. Any future mandates must be accompanied by adequate State funding and current mandates must be funded by the State within a specific period of time following adoption.
4. Lack of Awareness:
5. Lack of Interest in Home Rule and Consolidation