December 7, 2023


Law for politics

Christiana’s unclear, unfair policy on consultant fees should be revised [editorial] | Our Opinion

THE Problem: “Christiana Borough is demanding folks to pay to get specific information and facts from the municipality,” LNP | LancasterOnline’s Carter Walker documented for an post in Thursday’s edition. “The coverage, formalized by resolution on March 2, says that if the borough — situated in southeastern Lancaster County — desires to seek the advice of an outside the house pro to response a issue from the public, the requester will have to deliver billing information and facts in advance so that any related value can be passed on.”

We’re involved that the language in Christiana’s recent resolution could primarily deny users of the general public entry to data to which they must be entitled devoid of expense.

And the mere presence of the requirement that billing information and facts be delivered in advance will surely discourage some from even in search of info in the to start with place.

Federal government need to get the job done for us, not the other way about. And taxpayers should not have to shell out for information and facts they subsidized with their tax pounds.

In the resolution, Christiana facts its policy to appoint non-public consultants “to aid the Borough Team from time to time” and “augment the Staff’s capabilities with specialist abilities in precise disciplines vital to enable market the community health and fitness, safety, and general welfare of the Borough and its citizens.”

The resolution proceeds: “For those people projects that advantage the specific property operator, it is the coverage of the Borough to impose realistic rate on the person home proprietor to protect venture certain expenditures. In addition, it is the Borough’s policy to require the individual residence owner to entirely reimburse the Borough for its Consultants’ time and elements important to make sure that those people tasks benefiting the particular person residence operator comply with Borough Code.”

That last section is essential: “fully reimburse the Borough for its Consultants’ time and elements.”

This is not typical observe, and we are not by itself in obtaining it problematic.

“Melissa Melewsky, media legislation counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Affiliation, stated she was unaware of any other municipality in the state enacting a very similar policy,” LNP | LancasterOnline’s Walker documented. “She said Christiana’s shift is concerning due to the fact the solicitor and engineer are now paid out with tax dollars, and any service fees charged to reply inquiries about borough guidelines could quantity to a ‘double tax.’ ”

Melewsky further comprehensive how this kind of charges could effect the general public.

“The menace of possessing to pay out a professional’s cost, which are generally considerable, will restrict or outright prohibit the public from searching for obtain to information and facts about their govt,” she mentioned. “The borough must address cost worries via the contractual agreements it makes use of to pay back for qualified companies, not by passing alongside probably exorbitant fees to citizens trying to get obtain to public details.”

We agree. Christiana’s plan produces a prohibitive economical obstacle for those people it is intended to serve.

Carol Pringle, the outgoing borough supervisor, explained to Walker that the policy was drafted to utilize to folks who inquire about house growth concerns, this sort of as sewer or stormwater restrictions. “Those inquiries, (Pringle) claimed, from time to time demand enter from expert engineers or solicitors who monthly bill the borough for their expert services,” Walker wrote.

Pringle appeared to point out that the strategy is to secure borough taxpayers from big developers and individuals outdoors the borough trying to find information and facts that involves time and skills to obtain.

“It’s not truly truthful to my citizens that somebody who is seeking for information on a property need to go off the rate to my inhabitants for that data,” Pringle said. “If the borough incurs a rate, we can go that on to the particular person requesting that.”

But we have read through the plan, and it does not appear to make a distinction concerning borough citizens and nonresidents. Or between builders and people. Christiana people should not have to pay out advisor costs when asking their individual neighborhood governing administration for information and facts.

If the borough council agrees on that place, then the policy should have been penned that way.

“(Melewsky) stated the borough’s policy is not constrained to developers as it is penned,” Walker claimed. “It addresses any home concern involving a permit, not only intricate ordinance compliance troubles.”

“It’s also noteworthy that the plan permits the borough to search for exterior marketing consultant expenses when it is ‘required or desired’ by the borough,” Melewsky further more advised Walker. “The plan can be utilized anytime the borough would like, not just those events when outside the house information is truly necessary. That kind of discretion is very easily abused and could consequence in program difficulties staying routed to exterior consultants at large service fees rather than having publicly funded employees tackle them.”

In fact, this kind of obscure wording in the coverage will allow for uneven application at very best and abuse at worst.

As an supplemental concern, Melewsky said the state’s Appropriate-to-Know Legislation prohibits costs for requests for general public documents.

Pringle said the marketing consultant fees would not implement in typical Ideal-to-Know requests, Walker reported. But, once more, that should really have been designed clearer in the language.

As Pringle summed up in talking with LNP | LancasterOnline, “If it is our citizens and they are wanting for a project, they would just be spending the allowing fee. I don’t think we could cost them for that information and facts.”

The difficulty is that Christiana’s policy is much too unclear. It should be revised. And shortly.