RSS Feeds
Strict Construction: How to build a parking authority
...or, to paraphrase a now-famous local line, "To build a parking authority, you must first have the authority."
The following appeared in today's print edition of The Phoenix, and is here reprinted so that readers may have the opportunity to weigh in.
PHOENIXVILLE — Borough council’s consideration of the establishment of an independent authority to help resolve borough parking headaches relies on state statutes that largely will define the authority’s powers and organization.
Pennsylvania municipalities are able to create independent authorities “to finance and/or operate specific public works projects without tapping the general taxing powers of the municipality,” according to the commonwealth’s Department of Community and Economic Development, under the terms of the Municipalities Authorities Act of 1945 and the Parking Authority Law of 1947.
“The general taxing power of the municipality” has been the central issue in authority legislation: authorities have been established principally as vehicles to address “the desire to avoid local tax increases. Authorities do this by resorting to user charges,” according to DCED’s Municipal Authorities in Pennsylvania. An authority also has the ability to incur debt, although its ability to do so is rooted in the “full faith and credit” of the municipality it serves.
The 1945 Act did not specify types of purposes that authorities could address. Pennsylvania communities have incorporated under that legislation authorities to finance, sometimes to finance and manage, water systems, transportation systems, airports, flood control projects, economic development projects – and parking, one problem that stood behind the 1945 legislation and was specifically addressed in the 1947 Law. Besides the metro areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, some two dozen other Commonwealth municipalities — from Erie to Altoona to Harrisburg, Reading, Bethlehem and Easton – operate parking authorities.
Another reason for the use of an authority, the DCED says, is “the proposition that an authority can administer certain entrepreneurial-type services more efficiently than a municipal government … Authority functions often require intensive planning and a long-range approach more likely to be found in a business-type
operation than in government.”
There are practical and political considerations frequently cited by municipalities, as well, DCED says. “Delegation of overseeing a complex function to a group of citizens other than the elected officials spreads the workload and responsibility for providing public services to a wider base in the community. It relieves some of the burden from the elected governing body, already responsible for overseeing a wide range of governmental functions. Since most authorities perform only one function, the authority board can concentrate its energies on this single area.”
The ordinance under consideration by borough council follows statutory direction, and includes these provisions:
The authority established for a period of 50 years, though it may be dissolved earlier by petition to council from the authority’s board, and can be extended in the same fashion;
The authority is governed by a five-member Board, appointed by Borough Council President, with five-year staggered terms. The Articles of Incorporation under discussion do not name the first appointees, and will not until council acts on the ordinance and articles.
“Once organized,” reads the proposed ordinance, “the authority is authorized to administer, supervise and enforce an efficient system” of parking regulation. The authority’s powers would include the analysis of parking problems and recommendation for their rectification; exploration of parking improvement alternatives and their financing; and parking management, including ticketing and other means of enforcement, including the collection “on behalf of the borough rates and other charges, including fines and penalties” for parking violations.
At council’s regular business meeting March 11, Kendrick Buckwalter, R-West, and Richard Mark Kirkner, D-North, suggested changes to state statutory provisions for the Authority’s lifespan and the appointment process for Board members. Andrew Rau, of the borough solicitor firm Unruh, Turner Burke & Frees, said that he knew of no case law precedents that would suggest whether such changes would be sustained or denied in the courts.
Posted by
Skip Lawerence
The following appeared in today's print edition of The Phoenix, and is here reprinted so that readers may have the opportunity to weigh in.
PHOENIXVILLE — Borough council’s consideration of the establishment of an independent authority to help resolve borough parking headaches relies on state statutes that largely will define the authority’s powers and organization.
Pennsylvania municipalities are able to create independent authorities “to finance and/or operate specific public works projects without tapping the general taxing powers of the municipality,” according to the commonwealth’s Department of Community and Economic Development, under the terms of the Municipalities Authorities Act of 1945 and the Parking Authority Law of 1947.
“The general taxing power of the municipality” has been the central issue in authority legislation: authorities have been established principally as vehicles to address “the desire to avoid local tax increases. Authorities do this by resorting to user charges,” according to DCED’s Municipal Authorities in Pennsylvania. An authority also has the ability to incur debt, although its ability to do so is rooted in the “full faith and credit” of the municipality it serves.
The 1945 Act did not specify types of purposes that authorities could address. Pennsylvania communities have incorporated under that legislation authorities to finance, sometimes to finance and manage, water systems, transportation systems, airports, flood control projects, economic development projects – and parking, one problem that stood behind the 1945 legislation and was specifically addressed in the 1947 Law. Besides the metro areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, some two dozen other Commonwealth municipalities — from Erie to Altoona to Harrisburg, Reading, Bethlehem and Easton – operate parking authorities.
Another reason for the use of an authority, the DCED says, is “the proposition that an authority can administer certain entrepreneurial-type services more efficiently than a municipal government … Authority functions often require intensive planning and a long-range approach more likely to be found in a business-type
operation than in government.”
There are practical and political considerations frequently cited by municipalities, as well, DCED says. “Delegation of overseeing a complex function to a group of citizens other than the elected officials spreads the workload and responsibility for providing public services to a wider base in the community. It relieves some of the burden from the elected governing body, already responsible for overseeing a wide range of governmental functions. Since most authorities perform only one function, the authority board can concentrate its energies on this single area.”
The ordinance under consideration by borough council follows statutory direction, and includes these provisions:
The authority established for a period of 50 years, though it may be dissolved earlier by petition to council from the authority’s board, and can be extended in the same fashion;
The authority is governed by a five-member Board, appointed by Borough Council President, with five-year staggered terms. The Articles of Incorporation under discussion do not name the first appointees, and will not until council acts on the ordinance and articles.
“Once organized,” reads the proposed ordinance, “the authority is authorized to administer, supervise and enforce an efficient system” of parking regulation. The authority’s powers would include the analysis of parking problems and recommendation for their rectification; exploration of parking improvement alternatives and their financing; and parking management, including ticketing and other means of enforcement, including the collection “on behalf of the borough rates and other charges, including fines and penalties” for parking violations.
At council’s regular business meeting March 11, Kendrick Buckwalter, R-West, and Richard Mark Kirkner, D-North, suggested changes to state statutory provisions for the Authority’s lifespan and the appointment process for Board members. Andrew Rau, of the borough solicitor firm Unruh, Turner Burke & Frees, said that he knew of no case law precedents that would suggest whether such changes would be sustained or denied in the courts.
Posted by
Skip Lawerence
posted by The Phoenix Files at
3:08 PM
13 Comments:
Who among us completly trusts the gang who can't shoot straight down at boro hall?
50 years would be a long time for Phoenixville to suffer yet another mistake.
No parking authority.
Would it come as a surprise to you that the Parking Authority Law of 1947 was repealed in 2001?
This is the key phrase:
“The general taxing power of the municipality” has been the central issue in authority legislation: authorities have been established principally as vehicles to address “the desire to avoid local tax increases. Authorities do this by resorting to user charges,”
Since Barry couldn't get Manny a parking garage with public grants, they now want a "parking authority" so that they will have the legal right raise the money for their much-desired parking garage by being able to enact "user fees" ie, parking permits, for Phoenixville residents.
I don't want to pay a user fee to be able to park in front of my own house so that Manny can sidestemp the costs of funding the parking garage that he wants, and thus make more even more money from his 14 story towers.
I would find the Phoenix blogs more interesting if Skip or some of the council members would actually respond to the posters remarks. Most people post what everyone else is thinking or has heard on the street. Why no responses?
You could allways tell us what a chciken told ya.
I cannot believe they could make someone pay to park in their own Handicapped Parking spot!
If the Borough's solicitor cannot even get the write law in which to build the authority, how in god's name can we trust the idiots with less training to keep it in place and enforce it? The solicitor needs to go and so does any idiot that votes for the authority.
Being that this is St. Patty's day, I thought if I came out of my drunken stupor that the issue of the Parking Authority would be gone and I could blame it on my being drunk...I find out that Council is still playing with it (and other things) so I better go back to drinking
It is bad enough we need to live with the mistake of electing these power hungry people to terms of 4 years, mistakes we are forced to live with as there are no provisions to have them removed. A 50 year mistake is a life sentence and not one that this borough can afford to make. This is a mistake that will haunt us, our children and in some cases our childrens children.
If the solicitor cannot get the correct law in which to form the authority, can we trust him that simple changes can be made to decrease the number of years that the authority is empowered? Can we trust the solicitor that the way in which the board members can be chosen?
The Demorats in this town have done it a miscarriage of justice:
1) hired cronie for Borough manager
2) raised taxed 30+% in two years
3)No concrete plan to replace cronie - see#1
4) Getting us into a parking authority we have no business in and will take a lifetime to correct.
5) Maybe if they took the basic lessons as reflected in another blog, they might have a damn clue as to what they are doing
NO CLUE, NO LEADERSHIP, NO PLAN!
The problem as I see it is, if the project is viable, meaning it will make money, why are private developers not knocking down our doors to put up a garage? Why do we need to put tax payers’ dollars on the line, effect our credit rating and borrowing potential to back a project that cannot and most likely will not work? We do not face parking issues during the day, I am downtown every day, and there is always plenty of parking available. The problem comes at night, where the bars are the busiest. We are looking at attempting to set up a program that is the complete opposite of every format that is currently a success. We are looking to make free parking during the day and charge at night? That in and of itself will tell you that it is doomed.
The Steel Site will eventually work itself out in the end, (something the paper still refuses to respond too is the MacPuke statement that is posted on other blogs regarding his relationship with King John.). If they do not want to produce and present plans that fit into current zoning and work WITH the Planning Commission, we cannot force them to negotiate. Why is it that we need to bend over backwards for developers, any developer? We have zoning regulations for reasons, to provide diverse areas in which to live! If they wish to develop that area, such as the new twin towers, why not provide a reasonable plan that does not call for increased density and other such waivers? If the developer needs that type of density to make a profit, they need to adjust their costs elsewhere and not cause Planning Commission or Council to change zoning to fit their needs or should have figured it out prior to purchasing the property. He’s been around the block more than once as well as the rest of the family, let’s not play dumb now.
You state that you got your information from the CP, the person who is to make sure that HIS personal contact info is available to his constituents? That is missing from the paper and not being reported on. He is also to make sure that he council minutes are also on the web site? Yet not one meeting from this year has found it to post for the public record on the web site. Also not reported. So when you tell me that you want to take legal information from a layman and a solicitor that quotes from an outdated repealed law, yes I question the solicitor, I question the CP I also question whether you have enough neutrality to report on such issues!
So I guess the true moral is you can look up a cows butt to check a t-bone or you can just take the butchers word for it. Guess we know where your head is at.
Have a nice day!
Et tu Skip? Going tet de tat and no comment? Say it ain't so?!? Is any of comments made by 'and the truth' true? Is Council President Wagner's contact info not valid? What is this MacPuke document? Is it true that the paper is covering this information up? Is there more that is not being told to us?
My question to Bruer the chicken...was that a law or an ordinance that was repealed, or don't you know the difference?
Yo, Dick, NOW you're talkin'....you finally got it right, brother. Should not have cast aspersions my way when the real culprit is and was the chicken. You owe me a (private) apology.
Post a Comment
<< Home