Harrisburg’s financial picture is too perilous to continue the luxury of a mayor and a city council talking past each other. Everyone needs to be on board to figure out the best strategy to deal with an incinerator that threatens to bankrupt the city.
And maybe for once we could get some agreement on just what the financial prospects are of the incinerator ever paying for itself and its massive $300 million debt, without annual subsidies from the city.
The incinerator debacle is an old story. And except for the fact that the plant in south Harrisburg is expected to be operating at its peak capacity of burning 800 tons of municipal waste per day early next year, the news doesn’t get any better.
Back when the incinerator was less than $200 million in debt, the public was told that a retrofit would generate sufficient revenues not only to cover the old debt but also the new debt incurred in practically rebuilding the entire three-burner plant from scratch. We had our doubts, but it got worse than even we expected when the first contractor botched the project.
The Harrisburg Authority, which technically owns the incinerator, hired a quality company, Covanta Energy, to fid and run it on the second try. And still we were told that it would all work out in the end financially, even make a profit in the out years.
Now a new analysis by Public Financial Management, which was hired by the authority, projects that next year’s loss at the incinerator would reach $13 million. And this comes after a major increase in city and county trash rates, along with financial backing from the city and county for a $30 million bridge loan to get the incinerator through the repair period.
It hasn’t helped that Mayor Stephen R. Reed and members of city council have been at odds through this entire mess, even to the point of both sides going to court to fight over control of the authority. Having lost that battle, the mayor claims that until recently the authority kept him in the dark about the shaky state of its financial affairs, which aren’t confined to the incinerator. It is hardly credible that the mayor wouldn’t’ know anything about the authority’s finances that he wanted to know.
Patty Kim, one of the few members of council who doesn’t appear to have her own partisan agenda, made the analysis known, stating, “I’m trying to sound the alarm…it’s definitely not looking good for the Harrisburg Authority.”
There is plenty of blame to go around for this fiasco. But pointing fingers isn’t going to help in addressing what Kim likens to a “tsunami.” For the common good, the mayor and members of council need to put aside their squabbles and start acting like grown-ups.
Patty Focuses on Priorities, Not Politics
City Councilwoman Patty Kim hit the nail on the head with her observation on the issue of whether council or the mayor has the right to appoint the city solicitor:
“This is not the time to engage in a sparring match when we are dealing with major financial challenges that will affect every single resident and our future.”
Council Vice President Dan Miller is leading a challenge to Mayor Stephen R. Reed’s authority to appoint the solicitor, who heads a five-person city law bureau.
Reed contends it’s an executive branch position with mayoral power of appointment under the city’s strong-mayor form of government.
Miller disputes that legal interpret ation and has point ed to a 2003 Com monwealth Court ruling involving the City of Easton that he says supports council authority. The timing is right to address this, Miller says, since the position recent ly became vacant with the resignation of Stephen Dade and Reed’s nomination of Philip J. Harper to replace him.
We understand why this issue is of concern to Miller and other council members. Although the mayor has a long list of accomplishments during his seven terms in office, he also has a one-man operating style and a track record of keeping council in the dark on key projects.
The most recent example is the debacle involving his proposed Museum of the Wild West. The mayor spent millions personally collecting artifacts before the proposal even came to light. Then, after the city’s poor financial condition forced him to abandoned the project, auctions of the artifacts have only returned $1.7 million of the $7.2 million Reed spent.
Also, in Miller’s defense, the current vacancy and nomination give some justification to his pushing the issue now. But we agree with Councilwoman Kim that there are simply bigger things on which council and the mayor should be concentrating.
Council literally has the city’s short- and long-term financial framework in its hands as it continues to vet an investment group’s offer to lease a large part of city parking facilities over the next 75 years.
Reed contends the $215 million upfront payment and subsequent annual revenues will pay off parking authority debt, provide significant property tax relief, and put more police officers on the street.
If council rejects the offer — and Miller has been a staunch opponent of it — then it needs to put forth ideas to address high property tax rates in the city, crime and other pressing needs at a time when the nation’s dismal economy is going to create even more budgetary pressure.
Council’s full attention should be directed to those issues. It’s also not like council members are completely shut out of the solicitor appointment process, since nominations are subject to council confirmation.
Better timing to address this issue might be next year, when there will be mayoral and council contests on the ballot, and it can be brought up as a campaign issue.
At this crucial point in the city’s history, we have to question whether residents are as concerned about who appoints the solicitor as they are about seeing their elected officials at City Hall working jointly on remedies to immediately pressing issues affecting their daily lives and finances.