Nesquehoning has unanimously voted to look at whether or not the borough’s water authority should be dissolved, however, the vote came after a tense discussion and included three council members abstaining because of their involvement in the authority.

During borough council’s recent meeting, council, in a 4-0 vote, authorized solicitor Robert Yurchak to look into whether or not it was feasible to dissolve the borough water authority.

Council members Suzanne Smith, Paul Kattner and David Hawk all abstained from the vote due to either being on the water authority board or employed by the water authority.

Water authorities were created years ago to help municipalities be able to secure more funding for projects. Nesquehoning’s authority, which has been around since the 70s, was up for renewal or dissolution next year.

John McArdle, who sits on the borough water authority board, asked council its intention because it was the first time he was hearing of this proposal.

“I’d like to know why,” he said.

Councilwoman Lois Kuba, who made the motion, said that it is to look at bringing everything “under one umbrella.”

“The authority really had their usage back in the day when you needed to float bonds and the borough could not sustain those kind of moneys,” she said, adding that authorities typically have around a 50-year lifespan.

Council position

Councilwoman Smith, who is employed in the authority, questioned her colleagues over the motion made because she felt there was lack of communication on this matter.

“You can extend it,” she said, noting that she had received bits and pieces of information but never the whole story.

Smith also asked what this would mean for her since she was voted in for a four-year term on council, but if the water authority is dissolved and she becomes a borough employee, code says she cannot sit on council as a borough employee. Right now, the water authority is considered a separate entity, allowing for water authority members to serve on council.

She also spoke about the need for more discussion with union reps and doing a cost analysis to see if this would really save the borough money.

“We’ve worked very hard within the water authority to get where we’re at and to just come in and say, ‘Well, you know it makes it easier for everybody.’ I think we need to talk to our employees. I get we don’t have to take into consideration what the employees feel, but it would be nice ... if we all sat down together and went over everything instead of people feeling left out.”

She pointed out to the second motion on the agenda that approved the consortium agreement between the two entities regarding health insurance. The move was initially rejected by the water authority because of a lack of communication and all the facts.

“That’s six months that we’ve lost out on saving money because we did not sit down and talk this through,” Smith said.

No warning

She also questioned why McArdle wasn’t informed of this idea ahead of the meeting considering he is a fixture in the community and is in the office almost daily.

McArdle said that the water authority and borough already share workforces so he didn’t understand the reasoning. He also pointed out that the water authority currently has three loans totaling $609,000.

“Once you bring that in, the borough is only going to be able to borrow so much money. The purpose of the authority was to be able to go after loans and grants,” he said, adding that there are two grants pending. “What’s going to happen with those?”

McArdle also noted that the authority is waiting on the Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Fourth Hollow to find out if we have to breach the Fourth Hollow or do we have to make repairs.

“You’re talking a sizable amount of money either way,” he said. “Once that dam gets breached, that’s a loss of income for the water authority because right now we’re getting subsidized by Panther Creek. There are a lot of factors that are in here.”

“My question is, if you have questions about anything the way it’s ran or how it is done, why wouldn’t you come and just ask me directly. I’m on council. I’m the office manager. I can tell you the ins and outs of everything that’s been done since I took over the authority,” Smith said.

McArdle also brought up the insurance debate late last year, calling it a “debacle.”

“It could have been easily hammered out,” he said.

Councilwoman Mary Fox said the motion to dissolve is not going to happen overnight. It takes months or even upwards of a year to properly investigate the matter to see if it is feasible.

“It’s a process,” she said.

Authority reports

Councilman Bruce Nalesnik added that with over the last few years, he has never received a report from the authority, to which Smith said the borough gets an audit report every single year from the water authority.

He said that he feels the water authority should provide a list of projects being done and how the operations are handled.

“It seems like we appoint the members and then there’s no accountability to council,” Nalesnik said

McArdle asked Nalesnik if he ever asked the water authority for reports if he was concerned about not seeing anything.

He also said that Nalesnik’s remarks regarding the insurance consortium last year were “disheartening” because the insurance presentation basically said “here it is and when we asked for more information and we asked for another meeting, your words were ‘I sat through it twice, I’m not doing it a third time.’ So having an attitude like that, I mean that’s very disheartening.”

Nalesnik said he heard the presentation twice and didn’t feel the need to come to another meeting.

Smith said that what the authority was told versus what the consortium entailed wasn’t 100% accurate and that was why there was opposition, adding that no other department in the borough gets changes without first going through much discussion.

Nalesnik said that he has heard from water authority members say that it is time to end this and that it isn’t functional anymore so that is why he is seriously considering the dissolution.

Following the vote, council then voted to approve the consortium 6-0, with Smith abstaining between the water authority and borough for health insurance, beginning July 1.