December 10, 2011
The Patriot Editor fax no. 610-369-0233
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the very informative article about the Kutztown Borough 2012 Budget in the December 1, 2011 edition of The Patriot. The Borough informed you that the water rate will be increased 40%, the sewer rate 30%, the electric rate 4% and the trash rate 25%.
The article also stated that the Borough would fund the Water Dept. with a $6 million loan and the Sewer Dept. with a $6 million loan through bond issues. This will increase the Borough Debt to more than $25 million and the loan payment (debt service) will be more than $2 million annually. That is $400 per year per resident.
These utility rate increases were inevitable because the Borough has been illegally funding the Telecommunications Department with utility funds. The independent Auditor Long & Barrell, Borough Solicitor Mooney and the Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl are all aware of this Borough procedure. The Borough has never and has no plan to publish a financial report on Telecommunications.
With a Budget of $32 million and a population of 5,000, the Borough spends about $6,400 per resident. Reading Pennsylvania, a distressed city and also the United States’ poorest city, spends $912 per resident with a population of 80,000 and a budget of $73 million.
A debt of $25 million means the Borough borrowed $5,000 per resident. This situation is beyond reality and common sense and can not be sustained.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
VOTE ANDY ARNOLD FOR bOROUGH cOUNCIL
VOTE ANDY ARNOLD FOR BOROUGH COUNCIL
I received a card from Councilman Edwin “Ed” Seyler,
He states he is a Financing Conservative, yet we have a Debt of more than $20 million and a Budget of more than $18 million in expenditures and $17 million of revenue.
He states he is Community involved and Accountable, yet we have never received a financial report on Telecommunications, which loses about $1 million a year.
The annual payment on the debt is more than the Police Dept. budget.
We have had enough of “Ed” Seyler
VOTE ANDY ARNOLD FOR BOROUGH COUNCIL
Gennaro “Jerry” Marino
A Neighbor of Andy Arnold
I received a card from Councilman Edwin “Ed” Seyler,
He states he is a Financing Conservative, yet we have a Debt of more than $20 million and a Budget of more than $18 million in expenditures and $17 million of revenue.
He states he is Community involved and Accountable, yet we have never received a financial report on Telecommunications, which loses about $1 million a year.
The annual payment on the debt is more than the Police Dept. budget.
We have had enough of “Ed” Seyler
VOTE ANDY ARNOLD FOR BOROUGH COUNCIL
Gennaro “Jerry” Marino
A Neighbor of Andy Arnold
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
long & barrell 9-6-11
September 6, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com
Long, Barrell & Co. Ltd.
135 North Prospect Street
Reading, Pa 19606-1407
Attention Mr. Long and Mr. Barrell
Dear Sirs;
Enclosed please find a letter to me from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development dated July 15, 2011 which states that your Kutztown Borough Audit for 2010 is a public record. Your letter attached to the Audit dated March 25, 2011 states “This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing body and management of the Borough of Kutztown, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for filing with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development and the Berks County Clerk of Courts and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties”. I paid $4.75 for a copy of the Audit on April 4, 2011 and was told by the Borough Finance Director Samilo this was the only Audit available and there would be a later Audit for the Borough Council. The Audit is also available on the Borough Website. The DCED Letter also states “You may need to consult the CPA as to the reference of the Documents disclosure”. So I am now consulting you.
Please explain the following;
1) Explain to the Borough Residents why the Borough makes the Audit available at the Borough Hall and on its website when your letter states it is only for certain parties.
2) Explain to the residents why the Total Expenditures exceed the Total Revenues by more than $1million.
3) Explain to the residents why the Kutztonion states the Debt Service is $582,065 when it actually is $1,210,065.
In my letter dated June 1, 2011 to the Borough Mayor and Borough Council I state they are withholding and falsifying Borough Financial Records with your approval. I have not received a reply to this letter.
I think these omissions and discrepancies are deliberate to conceal the fact that the Borough is illegally funding the Telecommunications Department, which loses about $1 million a year, with funds from other Borough Departments, all again with your approval.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com
Long, Barrell & Co. Ltd.
135 North Prospect Street
Reading, Pa 19606-1407
Attention Mr. Long and Mr. Barrell
Dear Sirs;
Enclosed please find a letter to me from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development dated July 15, 2011 which states that your Kutztown Borough Audit for 2010 is a public record. Your letter attached to the Audit dated March 25, 2011 states “This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing body and management of the Borough of Kutztown, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for filing with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development and the Berks County Clerk of Courts and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties”. I paid $4.75 for a copy of the Audit on April 4, 2011 and was told by the Borough Finance Director Samilo this was the only Audit available and there would be a later Audit for the Borough Council. The Audit is also available on the Borough Website. The DCED Letter also states “You may need to consult the CPA as to the reference of the Documents disclosure”. So I am now consulting you.
Please explain the following;
1) Explain to the Borough Residents why the Borough makes the Audit available at the Borough Hall and on its website when your letter states it is only for certain parties.
2) Explain to the residents why the Total Expenditures exceed the Total Revenues by more than $1million.
3) Explain to the residents why the Kutztonion states the Debt Service is $582,065 when it actually is $1,210,065.
In my letter dated June 1, 2011 to the Borough Mayor and Borough Council I state they are withholding and falsifying Borough Financial Records with your approval. I have not received a reply to this letter.
I think these omissions and discrepancies are deliberate to conceal the fact that the Borough is illegally funding the Telecommunications Department, which loses about $1 million a year, with funds from other Borough Departments, all again with your approval.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Reading Eagle Editor 8-24-11
August 24, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
website www.marinoreport.com
The Reading Eagle Editor
Fax 610-371-5098
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your article about the Borough of Kutztown saving $334,000 over 10 years by refinancing a bond. Council President Mac Eidle stated it is a good time to refinance. He didn’t say the Borough is in the process of borrowing $8.5 million to increase the Borough Debt to more than $20 million and the debt annual payment will be about $1.8 million a year.
According to the Annual 2010 Audit Expenditures were about $18 million and Revenues were about $17 million.
Thank you Council President Eidle for your refinancing of the Bond to save the Borough $33,400 a year which will go a long way in repaying the Borough Debt payment of $1.8 million a year and raising about $1 million to balance the Borough Budget.
President Eidle should also explain how a Borough of 5,000 residents can support such a massive financial obligation. Thank you.
Gennaro A. Marino
Resident
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
website www.marinoreport.com
The Reading Eagle Editor
Fax 610-371-5098
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your article about the Borough of Kutztown saving $334,000 over 10 years by refinancing a bond. Council President Mac Eidle stated it is a good time to refinance. He didn’t say the Borough is in the process of borrowing $8.5 million to increase the Borough Debt to more than $20 million and the debt annual payment will be about $1.8 million a year.
According to the Annual 2010 Audit Expenditures were about $18 million and Revenues were about $17 million.
Thank you Council President Eidle for your refinancing of the Bond to save the Borough $33,400 a year which will go a long way in repaying the Borough Debt payment of $1.8 million a year and raising about $1 million to balance the Borough Budget.
President Eidle should also explain how a Borough of 5,000 residents can support such a massive financial obligation. Thank you.
Gennaro A. Marino
Resident
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Attorney General Linda L. Kelly 7-1-11
July 1, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Attorney General Linda L. Kelly
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Madam Attorney General Linda L. Kelly
I am a resident of Kutztown Pennsylvania and would like to question the Borough’s mandatory 2011 Annual Audit which was submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Under the Right to Know Law I purchased a copy of the Audit from the Borough and found it lacking vital facts and statistics. I questioned this with the Borough’s Financial Officer Samilo and he stated that was all he had which was a copy of the Audit sent to the DCED and that there will be another audit for the Borough Council. My question is should there be two 2010 Audits?
The Audit does not include an annual Debt Service total, all it states is Debt Service Interest. The Borough’s Newsletter, The Kutztonion, (attached) lists the Debt Service as $582,065 which is the amount of Debt Service interest in the Audit the DCED received (attached). The total Debt Service for the Borough is more than $1.1 million.
The Borough has never been very forthcoming with financial reports or budgets. There are no separate annual budgets or audits for the Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications Departments. The mandatory Annual Audit sent to the DCED suffices that one audit fits all. How can the Borough Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications rates be determined by the Borough Officials without an Audit or Budget?
My attached letter to the Borough Elected Officials dated June 1, 2011, details the above statements and further questions the Audit that was submitted to the DCED. I have never received a reply to my letter from any Borough Elected Officer or Borough Official. My letter also points out that the Audit sent to the DCED is not to be made public and should only be issued to specific agencies. The Audit was sold to me, is on the Borough website and is available at the Borough Hall.
I feel these issues I raise should be investigated by your Office and the Audit submitted to the DCED should be scrutinized by your Office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Attorney General Linda L. Kelly
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Madam Attorney General Linda L. Kelly
I am a resident of Kutztown Pennsylvania and would like to question the Borough’s mandatory 2011 Annual Audit which was submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Under the Right to Know Law I purchased a copy of the Audit from the Borough and found it lacking vital facts and statistics. I questioned this with the Borough’s Financial Officer Samilo and he stated that was all he had which was a copy of the Audit sent to the DCED and that there will be another audit for the Borough Council. My question is should there be two 2010 Audits?
The Audit does not include an annual Debt Service total, all it states is Debt Service Interest. The Borough’s Newsletter, The Kutztonion, (attached) lists the Debt Service as $582,065 which is the amount of Debt Service interest in the Audit the DCED received (attached). The total Debt Service for the Borough is more than $1.1 million.
The Borough has never been very forthcoming with financial reports or budgets. There are no separate annual budgets or audits for the Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications Departments. The mandatory Annual Audit sent to the DCED suffices that one audit fits all. How can the Borough Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications rates be determined by the Borough Officials without an Audit or Budget?
My attached letter to the Borough Elected Officials dated June 1, 2011, details the above statements and further questions the Audit that was submitted to the DCED. I have never received a reply to my letter from any Borough Elected Officer or Borough Official. My letter also points out that the Audit sent to the DCED is not to be made public and should only be issued to specific agencies. The Audit was sold to me, is on the Borough website and is available at the Borough Hall.
I feel these issues I raise should be investigated by your Office and the Audit submitted to the DCED should be scrutinized by your Office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Friday, June 24, 2011
DCED Letter 6-16-11
June 16, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Department of Community and Economic Development
400 North Street 4th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
DCED Head Alan Walker
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of Kutztown Pennsylvania and would like to discuss the Borough’s 2011 Annual Audit which was submitted to your department. Under the Right to Know Law I purchased a copy of the Audit from the Borough and found it lacking vital facts and statistics. I questioned this with the Borough’s Financial Officer Samilo and he stated that was all he had which was a copy of the Audit sent to your agency and that there will be another audit for the Borough Council. My question is should there be two 2010 Audits?
The Audit does not include an annual Debt Service total, all it states is Debt Service Interest. The Borough’s Newsletter, The Kutztonion, (attached) lists the Debt Service as $582,065 which is the amount of Debt Service interest in the Audit your office received (attached).
The total Debt Service for the Borough is more than $1.1 million.
The Borough has never been very forthcoming with financial reports or budgets. There are no separate annual budgets or audits for the Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications Departments. The mandatory Annual Audit sent to you suffices that one audit fits all.
My attached letter to the Borough Elected Officials dated June 1, 2011, details the above statements and further questions the Audit that you received from the Borough. I have never received a reply to my letter from anyone. My letter also points out that the Audit sent to you is not to be made public and should only be issued to specific agencies. The Audit was sold to me, is on the Borough website and is available at the Borough Hall.
I feel these issues I raise should be investigated by your Office and the Audit submitted to you should be scrutinized. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Department of Community and Economic Development
400 North Street 4th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
DCED Head Alan Walker
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of Kutztown Pennsylvania and would like to discuss the Borough’s 2011 Annual Audit which was submitted to your department. Under the Right to Know Law I purchased a copy of the Audit from the Borough and found it lacking vital facts and statistics. I questioned this with the Borough’s Financial Officer Samilo and he stated that was all he had which was a copy of the Audit sent to your agency and that there will be another audit for the Borough Council. My question is should there be two 2010 Audits?
The Audit does not include an annual Debt Service total, all it states is Debt Service Interest. The Borough’s Newsletter, The Kutztonion, (attached) lists the Debt Service as $582,065 which is the amount of Debt Service interest in the Audit your office received (attached).
The total Debt Service for the Borough is more than $1.1 million.
The Borough has never been very forthcoming with financial reports or budgets. There are no separate annual budgets or audits for the Electric, Water, Sewer and Telecommunications Departments. The mandatory Annual Audit sent to you suffices that one audit fits all.
My attached letter to the Borough Elected Officials dated June 1, 2011, details the above statements and further questions the Audit that you received from the Borough. I have never received a reply to my letter from anyone. My letter also points out that the Audit sent to you is not to be made public and should only be issued to specific agencies. The Audit was sold to me, is on the Borough website and is available at the Borough Hall.
I feel these issues I raise should be investigated by your Office and the Audit submitted to you should be scrutinized. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Letter to Elected Officials Audit 2010
June 1, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Council Members Eidle, Seyler, Schlegel, Gangewere, Snyder and Mace
Dear Elected Officials,
The deceit, lies, ignorance and arrogance by all of you with the approval of Solicitor Mooney of Barley Snyder, Auditor Long & Barrell and Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl continues as shown in the Kutztonian News Spring\Summer 2011’s Audit for 2010. It clearly states under Expenditures that the Debt Service is $582,065 which all of you should know, because you plan to borrow another $8.5 million, that the Debt Service is more than $1.1 million. This is a lie and not an oversight because the Audit should have been reviewed by you, the Borough Finance Officer, the Borough Manager Khalife and Auditor Long & Barrell.
Another ruse is combining Water, Sewer, Electric and Telecom under Expenditures ($9,413,796) and Charges for Services ($11,824,110) under Revenue to conceal the financial status of the four Borough Departments of the Borough. Especially the profit or loss of Telecom which the Borough illegally refused to publish its finances and defied the Office of Open Records with the help of Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl who overturned the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records. The Borough Annual Audit submitted to DCED states that Telecom lost $301,305 in 2010 when calculated as outlined in Court by Borough Solicitor Mooney and Judge Schmehl which is the difference between revenue and expenditures. It does not disclose the falsified budget and audit, the fraudulent Financial Reports and the altered Foremen time sheets that you are all aware of and approve. You are all guilty of falsifying Borough financial records which is corruption.
The Kutztonian also states that the Total Expenditures of the Borough in 2010 were $18,190,964 and Total Revenues were $17,126,887 which means the Borough Expenditures were $1,064,077 more than revenues which means the budget is not balanced which means the Borough needs $1,064,077 to balance the Budget. Where will this difference come from? Loans? Raise Water rates? Sewer rates? Electric rates? Taxes?
No where in the Audit or Kutztonian is the Debt Service shown which is more than $1.1 million a year.
The Mandatory Annual Audit is noted by Borough Auditor Long & Barrell and I quote,
“THIS REPORT IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE INFORMATION AND USE OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND FOR FILING WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE BERKS COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER THAN THESE SPECIFIED PARTIES.”
Why is the Audit published on the Borough website and why was it sold to me for $4.75 when it definitely states, “and is not intended to be AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PARTIES.”
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Council Members Eidle, Seyler, Schlegel, Gangewere, Snyder and Mace
Dear Elected Officials,
The deceit, lies, ignorance and arrogance by all of you with the approval of Solicitor Mooney of Barley Snyder, Auditor Long & Barrell and Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl continues as shown in the Kutztonian News Spring\Summer 2011’s Audit for 2010. It clearly states under Expenditures that the Debt Service is $582,065 which all of you should know, because you plan to borrow another $8.5 million, that the Debt Service is more than $1.1 million. This is a lie and not an oversight because the Audit should have been reviewed by you, the Borough Finance Officer, the Borough Manager Khalife and Auditor Long & Barrell.
Another ruse is combining Water, Sewer, Electric and Telecom under Expenditures ($9,413,796) and Charges for Services ($11,824,110) under Revenue to conceal the financial status of the four Borough Departments of the Borough. Especially the profit or loss of Telecom which the Borough illegally refused to publish its finances and defied the Office of Open Records with the help of Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl who overturned the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records. The Borough Annual Audit submitted to DCED states that Telecom lost $301,305 in 2010 when calculated as outlined in Court by Borough Solicitor Mooney and Judge Schmehl which is the difference between revenue and expenditures. It does not disclose the falsified budget and audit, the fraudulent Financial Reports and the altered Foremen time sheets that you are all aware of and approve. You are all guilty of falsifying Borough financial records which is corruption.
The Kutztonian also states that the Total Expenditures of the Borough in 2010 were $18,190,964 and Total Revenues were $17,126,887 which means the Borough Expenditures were $1,064,077 more than revenues which means the budget is not balanced which means the Borough needs $1,064,077 to balance the Budget. Where will this difference come from? Loans? Raise Water rates? Sewer rates? Electric rates? Taxes?
No where in the Audit or Kutztonian is the Debt Service shown which is more than $1.1 million a year.
The Mandatory Annual Audit is noted by Borough Auditor Long & Barrell and I quote,
“THIS REPORT IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE INFORMATION AND USE OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND FOR FILING WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE BERKS COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER THAN THESE SPECIFIED PARTIES.”
Why is the Audit published on the Borough website and why was it sold to me for $4.75 when it definitely states, “and is not intended to be AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PARTIES.”
Sincerely,
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Reading Eagle Editor PP&L 5-22-11
May 22, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
The Reading Eagle Editor
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the very informative article about PP&L electricity rates by Dan Kelly in your Saturday May 21, 2011 issue.
It states a standard PP&L customer who uses 1,000 KWH a month will be charged $88.
It also states the same 1,000 KWH will cost a time of use customer about $106
at off peak rates and about $124 at peak rates.
In Kutztown where residents can not shop for electricity rates because the Borough owns the electric company this same 1,000 KWH will cost $156.24 for a Residential Service when electric is the sole source of energy and $160.88 for General Residential Service. For Residential Service Borough residents will pay $156.24 and PP&L customers will pay $88. Kutztown customers will $68.24 more each month which is $818.88 a year. Borough figures are from the Borough website.
The Borough will be forced to raise the electric rates shortly to pay for the Borough debt which will be over $20 million shortly. The Mayor and Borough Council do not address these ridiculously high electric rates the Borough residents are paying.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
P.S. Copies of Borough websites calculations are attached.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
The Reading Eagle Editor
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the very informative article about PP&L electricity rates by Dan Kelly in your Saturday May 21, 2011 issue.
It states a standard PP&L customer who uses 1,000 KWH a month will be charged $88.
It also states the same 1,000 KWH will cost a time of use customer about $106
at off peak rates and about $124 at peak rates.
In Kutztown where residents can not shop for electricity rates because the Borough owns the electric company this same 1,000 KWH will cost $156.24 for a Residential Service when electric is the sole source of energy and $160.88 for General Residential Service. For Residential Service Borough residents will pay $156.24 and PP&L customers will pay $88. Kutztown customers will $68.24 more each month which is $818.88 a year. Borough figures are from the Borough website.
The Borough will be forced to raise the electric rates shortly to pay for the Borough debt which will be over $20 million shortly. The Mayor and Borough Council do not address these ridiculously high electric rates the Borough residents are paying.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
P.S. Copies of Borough websites calculations are attached.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
audit 2010 letter to council 4-21-11
April 21, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Sandra Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
On April 4, 2011 I purchased the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit for 2010 and was told there were no other annual audits for any of the Borough Departments. At my Court hearing Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney and Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl told me if I wanted to know the profit or loss of a Borough Department all I had to do was sum up the Revenues and Expenditures in the audit and the difference was the profit or loss.
I did as they suggested and came up with the following figures:
Waste Water\Sewage lost ($529,996)
Water System lost ($541,487)
Electric System earned $1,207,574
Telecommunications lost ($301,305)
Solid Waste earned $19, 533
And finally total expenditures $18,190,964 minus total revenues $17,126,887 means the Borough is short $1,064,077. Where will this $1,064,077 come from? All of the above figures are from the Annual Borough Audit of 2010 which was submitted to the DCED.
When I stated to the Borough Finance Director Samilo that the Audit lacked details he stated this Audit was for the DCED and there is another Audit which is being prepared that will be submitted to the Borough Council. This means the Borough has 2 different Audits, one to be submitted to the Commonwealth and one to be submitted to the Borough Council. Does the Borough have two sets of books?
Why aren’t the Waste Water System, Water System, Electric System, Telecommunications Department and Solid Waste Departments audited as per the Borough Code?
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Sandra Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
On April 4, 2011 I purchased the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit for 2010 and was told there were no other annual audits for any of the Borough Departments. At my Court hearing Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney and Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl told me if I wanted to know the profit or loss of a Borough Department all I had to do was sum up the Revenues and Expenditures in the audit and the difference was the profit or loss.
I did as they suggested and came up with the following figures:
Waste Water\Sewage lost ($529,996)
Water System lost ($541,487)
Electric System earned $1,207,574
Telecommunications lost ($301,305)
Solid Waste earned $19, 533
And finally total expenditures $18,190,964 minus total revenues $17,126,887 means the Borough is short $1,064,077. Where will this $1,064,077 come from? All of the above figures are from the Annual Borough Audit of 2010 which was submitted to the DCED.
When I stated to the Borough Finance Director Samilo that the Audit lacked details he stated this Audit was for the DCED and there is another Audit which is being prepared that will be submitted to the Borough Council. This means the Borough has 2 different Audits, one to be submitted to the Commonwealth and one to be submitted to the Borough Council. Does the Borough have two sets of books?
Why aren’t the Waste Water System, Water System, Electric System, Telecommunications Department and Solid Waste Departments audited as per the Borough Code?
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Loan $8.5 Million Water & Sewage
March 28, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Borough Elected Officials,
I see in the Borough Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011 that the Borough Council voted to clear the way to borrow $5.5 million to update and\or expand the Borough sanitary sewage treatment plant. How did you calculate the amount of the loan or bond if you haven’t decided if it is an update or expansion? Councilman Schlegel stated in The Reading Eagle he did not know how much sewage rates would be increased because he did not know the cost of the project. The estimate of the rate increase could be based on the amount of the loan.
The proposals you received for the loan were for $8.5 million which was for $5.5 million for the sewage treatment and $3 million for the water plant. When did you vote on borrowing $3 million for the water treatment plant?
I also heard that Spotts, Stevens and McCoy will design the update or expansion. When will it be decided if it is going to be an expansion or an update? This is the same Spotts, Stevens and McCoy that unethically hired Borough Manager Keith Hill 2 days after he resigned from the Borough because of the hostile Borough Hall environment and sat at his same desk at a wonderfully reduced rate of $85 per hour for Spotts, Stevens and McCoy. And yes this is the same Keith Hill who secretly sued the Borough for age discrimination and was paid a settlement of $162,000 by the Borough’s insurance carrier. Mr. Hill also approved payments for Spotts, Stevens and McCoy before he left the Borough. Does Spotts, Stevens and McCoy have the expertise to decide on an expansion or update and design the project?
The Borough had an opportunity to build a sewage treatment plant joint-venture with the Township of Maxatawny and turned it down after years of haggling and delaying of the project by the Borough. The best part of the deal was there was a Grant involved and the Borough did not have to put up any funds until they opted to use it. The Township is currently in the process of constructing the plant.
There are many questions to be asked of you and the former Elected Officials
Such as:
Why wasn’t the Borough alerted about the update or expansion by the Borough Engineering firm when the Borough was planning to construct a plant with the Township?
Why did the Borough give sewage service to Apex, outside the Borough, when the plant was close to capacity?
Did Apex ever pay their tapping fees to the Borough?
What will be the debt service of the total debt of $21.5 million?
This is another example of the short sighted outlook of you and your predecessors. All of a sudden, like overnight, the Borough needs a sewage treatment plant. This project was first discussed in 2000 and no one in the Borough knew that we would need an update or expansion. I would like a response to this letter by one of you personally. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Borough Elected Officials,
I see in the Borough Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011 that the Borough Council voted to clear the way to borrow $5.5 million to update and\or expand the Borough sanitary sewage treatment plant. How did you calculate the amount of the loan or bond if you haven’t decided if it is an update or expansion? Councilman Schlegel stated in The Reading Eagle he did not know how much sewage rates would be increased because he did not know the cost of the project. The estimate of the rate increase could be based on the amount of the loan.
The proposals you received for the loan were for $8.5 million which was for $5.5 million for the sewage treatment and $3 million for the water plant. When did you vote on borrowing $3 million for the water treatment plant?
I also heard that Spotts, Stevens and McCoy will design the update or expansion. When will it be decided if it is going to be an expansion or an update? This is the same Spotts, Stevens and McCoy that unethically hired Borough Manager Keith Hill 2 days after he resigned from the Borough because of the hostile Borough Hall environment and sat at his same desk at a wonderfully reduced rate of $85 per hour for Spotts, Stevens and McCoy. And yes this is the same Keith Hill who secretly sued the Borough for age discrimination and was paid a settlement of $162,000 by the Borough’s insurance carrier. Mr. Hill also approved payments for Spotts, Stevens and McCoy before he left the Borough. Does Spotts, Stevens and McCoy have the expertise to decide on an expansion or update and design the project?
The Borough had an opportunity to build a sewage treatment plant joint-venture with the Township of Maxatawny and turned it down after years of haggling and delaying of the project by the Borough. The best part of the deal was there was a Grant involved and the Borough did not have to put up any funds until they opted to use it. The Township is currently in the process of constructing the plant.
There are many questions to be asked of you and the former Elected Officials
Such as:
Why wasn’t the Borough alerted about the update or expansion by the Borough Engineering firm when the Borough was planning to construct a plant with the Township?
Why did the Borough give sewage service to Apex, outside the Borough, when the plant was close to capacity?
Did Apex ever pay their tapping fees to the Borough?
What will be the debt service of the total debt of $21.5 million?
This is another example of the short sighted outlook of you and your predecessors. All of a sudden, like overnight, the Borough needs a sewage treatment plant. This project was first discussed in 2000 and no one in the Borough knew that we would need an update or expansion. I would like a response to this letter by one of you personally. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Letter Appeared in Eagle March 16, 2011
March 4, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Friday, March 11, 2011
Attorney General Electric Bill 3-11-11
March 11, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pa. Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir,
This is a follow up of my letter to you dated March 6, 2011 which included a copy of my electric bill for the month of February showing the Service Fee I complained about as SERVICE FEE $9.15 and this month’s bill March (enclosed) as NET MONTHLY RATE MINIMUM $9.74.
As I stated in my previous letter, “in the past this Service Fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage”. The Borough is deceiving its customers by not only changing the terminology. It is also changing the amount from $9.15 to $9.74.
Aren’t the subscribers of the Borough entitled to a Council vote and a notice of title change and amount? Is the Borough trying to circumvent my complaint to you?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pa. Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir,
This is a follow up of my letter to you dated March 6, 2011 which included a copy of my electric bill for the month of February showing the Service Fee I complained about as SERVICE FEE $9.15 and this month’s bill March (enclosed) as NET MONTHLY RATE MINIMUM $9.74.
As I stated in my previous letter, “in the past this Service Fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage”. The Borough is deceiving its customers by not only changing the terminology. It is also changing the amount from $9.15 to $9.74.
Aren’t the subscribers of the Borough entitled to a Council vote and a notice of title change and amount? Is the Borough trying to circumvent my complaint to you?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Attorney General Electric Bill
March 6, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir:
I live in and purchase electricity from the Borough of Kutztown and in a Right to Know Request asked to see the Borough Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorizes the Service Fee charged on all Borough Electric bills. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ordered the Borough to give me the documents and we eventually went to the Court of Common Pleas and Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney stated there is no Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorized the charge. In the past this Service fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage.
My complaint is if there is no legislation or Borough Council vote authorizing this charge it is illegal and should be refunded to all the customers. Attached please find page 2 of a letter from Kutztown Borough Solicitor Mooney to the Court.
I have also attached a letter to the Elected Borough Officials and have received no reply from the Borough and a copy of my recent Electric bill account no. 20084 showing the Service Fee.
My complaint is against:
Borough of Kutztown
45 Railroad Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-6131
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir:
I live in and purchase electricity from the Borough of Kutztown and in a Right to Know Request asked to see the Borough Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorizes the Service Fee charged on all Borough Electric bills. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ordered the Borough to give me the documents and we eventually went to the Court of Common Pleas and Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney stated there is no Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorized the charge. In the past this Service fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage.
My complaint is if there is no legislation or Borough Council vote authorizing this charge it is illegal and should be refunded to all the customers. Attached please find page 2 of a letter from Kutztown Borough Solicitor Mooney to the Court.
I have also attached a letter to the Elected Borough Officials and have received no reply from the Borough and a copy of my recent Electric bill account no. 20084 showing the Service Fee.
My complaint is against:
Borough of Kutztown
45 Railroad Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-6131
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Editor The Reading Eagle
March 4, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Letter to Borough 2-27-11
February 27, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
You are all sitting there watching Solicitor Mooney lie in Court, of course with your approval. Everyone knows you are all guilty of lying and squandering our taxpayer money and do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit how much Telecom loses every year. Solicitor Mooney states and Judge Schmehl agrees if I want to calculate the profit or loss of Telecom all I have to do sum up the expenditures and the revenue.
Doesn’t Telecom have payrolls, costs of equipment, expenses, advertising, billing, revenue, taxes, bookkeeping and other costs like any other business? Solicitor Mooney’s biggest lie was municipalities do not keep records like private firms do. If Wall Street sent out financial reports like the Borough gave me they would be arrested.
I repeat Telecom loses $1 million a year. The Budget is falsified. The financial reports are fraudulent. Foremen’s reports are altered.
The proof that you are stealing money from the Borough Utilities and illegally putting it into Telecom is that you are entertaining proposals from Financial Institutions to borrow $8.5 million dollars that will bring the Borough’s total debt to $21.5 million. The payments on this debt will be about 1.6 and 1.8 million dollars a year which is more than the Police Department Budget.
How can a Borough with a population of 5,000 that includes 1,300 students owe $21.5 million? This debt is insurmountable.
The Court Decision proves that the Borough does not have a clue as to how to keep financial records
Gennaro A. Marino P.E..
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
You are all sitting there watching Solicitor Mooney lie in Court, of course with your approval. Everyone knows you are all guilty of lying and squandering our taxpayer money and do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit how much Telecom loses every year. Solicitor Mooney states and Judge Schmehl agrees if I want to calculate the profit or loss of Telecom all I have to do sum up the expenditures and the revenue.
Doesn’t Telecom have payrolls, costs of equipment, expenses, advertising, billing, revenue, taxes, bookkeeping and other costs like any other business? Solicitor Mooney’s biggest lie was municipalities do not keep records like private firms do. If Wall Street sent out financial reports like the Borough gave me they would be arrested.
I repeat Telecom loses $1 million a year. The Budget is falsified. The financial reports are fraudulent. Foremen’s reports are altered.
The proof that you are stealing money from the Borough Utilities and illegally putting it into Telecom is that you are entertaining proposals from Financial Institutions to borrow $8.5 million dollars that will bring the Borough’s total debt to $21.5 million. The payments on this debt will be about 1.6 and 1.8 million dollars a year which is more than the Police Department Budget.
How can a Borough with a population of 5,000 that includes 1,300 students owe $21.5 million? This debt is insurmountable.
The Court Decision proves that the Borough does not have a clue as to how to keep financial records
Gennaro A. Marino P.E..
Saturday, February 26, 2011
NEWSLETTER #4 2-26-11
NEWSLETTER # 4
February 26, 2011
It seems strange that after a 2 hour hearing in Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Court of Common Pleas for enforcing the Final Determination of the Office of Open all the Judge’s decision was basically 2 lines.
In one line he granted me un-redacted records which the Borough already agreed to give me at the hearing and I received them before he rendered his decision.
The 2nd line states “the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request”.
After 8 years of the Telecommunications business venture all that was presented at the hearing was the Borough’s Annual Report which is available on the Borough’s website. This Audit was also presented to the Office of Open Records and was taken into consideration in rendering their Final Determination.
The fact is and I stated at the hearing February 8, 2011:
1) The Borough has NEVER published an Audit, Budget or Financial Report on the Telecommunications Business Venture in its 8 years of existence.
2) That Telecommunications loses about $1 million a year.
3) That the Budget is falsified, the financial reports are fraudulent and the Foreman’s reports are altered.
Borough Solicitor Mooney stated go into the Borough’s Audit and sum up the
expenditures and the revenue of Telecom and that is the profit or loss. Judge Schmehl agreed with him. I stated that is not how it is done in private industry and Counselor Mooney stated Municipalities do it differently.
When I stated Telecom loses $1 million a year Mr. Mooney waved a paper in the air and said it was $200,000, but did present any figures.
When I stated the Budget was falsified, the financial reports were fraudulent and the foremen’s reports were altered, there was no response from Solicitor Mooney or Judge Schmehl.
This hearing was for the enforcement of the Office of Open Records decision and not the merits of the request. The Office of Open Records is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Judge J.L Schmehl overturned their decision with basically 2 lines.
I am in the process of obtaining the transcripts of the hearing and I promise to pursue this until the records are made public.
Gennaro A Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
February 26, 2011
It seems strange that after a 2 hour hearing in Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Court of Common Pleas for enforcing the Final Determination of the Office of Open all the Judge’s decision was basically 2 lines.
In one line he granted me un-redacted records which the Borough already agreed to give me at the hearing and I received them before he rendered his decision.
The 2nd line states “the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request”.
After 8 years of the Telecommunications business venture all that was presented at the hearing was the Borough’s Annual Report which is available on the Borough’s website. This Audit was also presented to the Office of Open Records and was taken into consideration in rendering their Final Determination.
The fact is and I stated at the hearing February 8, 2011:
1) The Borough has NEVER published an Audit, Budget or Financial Report on the Telecommunications Business Venture in its 8 years of existence.
2) That Telecommunications loses about $1 million a year.
3) That the Budget is falsified, the financial reports are fraudulent and the Foreman’s reports are altered.
Borough Solicitor Mooney stated go into the Borough’s Audit and sum up the
expenditures and the revenue of Telecom and that is the profit or loss. Judge Schmehl agreed with him. I stated that is not how it is done in private industry and Counselor Mooney stated Municipalities do it differently.
When I stated Telecom loses $1 million a year Mr. Mooney waved a paper in the air and said it was $200,000, but did present any figures.
When I stated the Budget was falsified, the financial reports were fraudulent and the foremen’s reports were altered, there was no response from Solicitor Mooney or Judge Schmehl.
This hearing was for the enforcement of the Office of Open Records decision and not the merits of the request. The Office of Open Records is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Judge J.L Schmehl overturned their decision with basically 2 lines.
I am in the process of obtaining the transcripts of the hearing and I promise to pursue this until the records are made public.
Gennaro A Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Judge J.L. Schmehl's Decision
February 23, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
400 North Street, 4th floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120 fax 717 425-5343
Attention Mr. Nathan J. Byerly, Chief Counsel
Dear Mr. Byerly,
Docket No. AP 2010-0899
Today I received Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Decision on my Petition for the Enforcement of the Office of Open Records Final Determination (attached).
It states GRANTED produce within 15 days un-redacted versions of all documents previously produced to the Plaintiff in a redacted form. Isn’t it strange that I have already received them, dated February 14, 2011, from the Borough before the Judge made his decision February 18, 2011. I have attached the Borough’s cover letter and a sample of the granted papers.
It then states DENIED insofar as, apart from the aforementioned un-redacted documents the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request. If this is true, it means the Borough does not have to publish financial reports or even produce or posses any financial records.
I am shocked by this decision which deprives the residents of reviewing what the Elected Officials are doing with our Borough revenue. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
400 North Street, 4th floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120 fax 717 425-5343
Attention Mr. Nathan J. Byerly, Chief Counsel
Dear Mr. Byerly,
Docket No. AP 2010-0899
Today I received Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Decision on my Petition for the Enforcement of the Office of Open Records Final Determination (attached).
It states GRANTED produce within 15 days un-redacted versions of all documents previously produced to the Plaintiff in a redacted form. Isn’t it strange that I have already received them, dated February 14, 2011, from the Borough before the Judge made his decision February 18, 2011. I have attached the Borough’s cover letter and a sample of the granted papers.
It then states DENIED insofar as, apart from the aforementioned un-redacted documents the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request. If this is true, it means the Borough does not have to publish financial reports or even produce or posses any financial records.
I am shocked by this decision which deprives the residents of reviewing what the Elected Officials are doing with our Borough revenue. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Illegal Electric rates? 2-21-11
February 21, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
In the Borough of Kutztown’s Answer to Petition to Enforce Final Determination of Office of Open Records, dated February 1, 2011, Borough Solicitor stated on page 2, para. 3.
It is admitted that the Office of Open Records ordered the Borough of Kutztown to provide the petitioner with any ordinances, resolutions or legislation authorizing the demand charge for electricity. It is further admitted that the Office of Open Records believed that the ordinance provided to the Petitioner establishing the electric rate charges to the Borough of Kutztown was not completely responsive. However, by way of further answer, the Borough has no further legislation, including ordinances or resolutions which have been enacted that provide for the monthly electric charges or demand charges other than section A231-1, Chapter 107, entitled “Electrical Standards”,
In the past this monthly electric charge has been called KW USAGE, SERVICE FEE AND NET RATE MINIMUM.
If no Resolutions, Ordinances or Legislation exist that authorize the Borough to bill the Electricity subscribers for the demand charges means it is an illegal charge without a Borough Council vote and the Mayor’s ratification. The Borough must return the demand charge to the electricity customers.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
In the Borough of Kutztown’s Answer to Petition to Enforce Final Determination of Office of Open Records, dated February 1, 2011, Borough Solicitor stated on page 2, para. 3.
It is admitted that the Office of Open Records ordered the Borough of Kutztown to provide the petitioner with any ordinances, resolutions or legislation authorizing the demand charge for electricity. It is further admitted that the Office of Open Records believed that the ordinance provided to the Petitioner establishing the electric rate charges to the Borough of Kutztown was not completely responsive. However, by way of further answer, the Borough has no further legislation, including ordinances or resolutions which have been enacted that provide for the monthly electric charges or demand charges other than section A231-1, Chapter 107, entitled “Electrical Standards”,
In the past this monthly electric charge has been called KW USAGE, SERVICE FEE AND NET RATE MINIMUM.
If no Resolutions, Ordinances or Legislation exist that authorize the Borough to bill the Electricity subscribers for the demand charges means it is an illegal charge without a Borough Council vote and the Mayor’s ratification. The Borough must return the demand charge to the electricity customers.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Court of Common Pleas letter to council 2-15-11
February 15, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
The Agenda for the February 15, 2011 Borough Council meeting states;
“Take action to increase Internet service rates by $5 per month for each level of service.”
How was the increase of $5 per month for each level of service calculated when Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney indicated in Court that there are no financial reports on Telecom? The financial information he offered was the revenue and expenditures in Telecom in the Borough’s Annual Audit.
Then I went on the Borough’s website and into the agenda for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission January 24, 2011 meeting. Under updates I found;
Rates for 2011 – negative balance to make up $36,000 approximately $5.94 per customer
This clearly shows the Borough does have financial records on Telecom and you are knowingly and deliberately defying the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to make them public.
Your actions on this matter are going to have a serious impact on Borough finances. The Borough’s debt is $13 million and you will have to borrow $5.5 million for the sewer plant update, the debt service will be insurmountable.
I am patiently waiting for the Court of Common Pleas decision so you can tell the residents the true loss of Telecom and how you will handle the Borough’s finances in the future.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc; Honorable Judge Jeffrey L Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Keith Mooney
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Gennaro A. Marino
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
The Agenda for the February 15, 2011 Borough Council meeting states;
“Take action to increase Internet service rates by $5 per month for each level of service.”
How was the increase of $5 per month for each level of service calculated when Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney indicated in Court that there are no financial reports on Telecom? The financial information he offered was the revenue and expenditures in Telecom in the Borough’s Annual Audit.
Then I went on the Borough’s website and into the agenda for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission January 24, 2011 meeting. Under updates I found;
Rates for 2011 – negative balance to make up $36,000 approximately $5.94 per customer
This clearly shows the Borough does have financial records on Telecom and you are knowingly and deliberately defying the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to make them public.
Your actions on this matter are going to have a serious impact on Borough finances. The Borough’s debt is $13 million and you will have to borrow $5.5 million for the sewer plant update, the debt service will be insurmountable.
I am patiently waiting for the Court of Common Pleas decision so you can tell the residents the true loss of Telecom and how you will handle the Borough’s finances in the future.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc; Honorable Judge Jeffrey L Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Keith Mooney
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Monday, February 14, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Counc 2-14-11
February 14, 2011
Gennaro A. MarinoP.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Kmayor@ptd.net
Mayor Sandy Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
At the Court of Common Pleas February 8, 2011 Hearing Solicitor Mooney stated anyone who would like to see the financial status of the Telecommunications should go to the Borough’s Mandatory Annual Audit and figure the profit or loss by totaling the revenue and expenditures of Telecom. He stated that is all anyone needs to see the finances of Telecom. That is how municipalities provide financial records and budget.
If you go to the Borough’s website and click on Finance, then click on Cable Franchise Agreement with Service Electric 2010. You will see;
Page 5 Para. 2.3 QUARTERLY PAYMENTS. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a written report containing an accurate statement of the applicable Service Electric’s Gross Revenues received for Cable Services for the quarter in connection with the operation of Service Electric’s Cable System and a brief report showing the basis for computation of fees. The report shall contain a line item for every applicable source of revenue received from each applicable source. The report shall be verified by a financial representative of Service Electric.
Page 6 Para. 2.4 (a) AUDITS. On an annual basis, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Service Electric, the Municipality shall have the right to conduct an independent audit or franchise fee revenue of Service Electric’s records reasonably related to the sources, amounts and computation of Gross Revenues in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Such Financial records shall be kept or made available to the Municipality at the local notice location for Service Electric specified in Section 13.3 below. The municipality and its representatives reviewing Service Electric’s financial records shall take reasonable and prudent steps to comply with all Applicable Law governing subscriber privacy and confidentiality of personally identifiably information.
Page 6 Para. 2.4 (c) AUDITS. The Municipality’s right to audit and Service Electric’s obligation to retain financial records related to franchise fee audit shall expire four (4) years after each franchise fee payment has been made to the Municipality, after which period any such payment shall be considered final.
It seems like you and Solicitor Mooney know the proper scheme to incorporate the Right to Know Law into your agreement with Service Electric.
This agreement with Service Electric justifies my Right to Know Request and confirms the Final Decision of the Office of Open Records. This proves you and Solicitor Mooney know what a financial report is and in Court all Solicitor Mooney offered me was the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit for the financial records of Telecom.
Solicitor Mooney did not fully address the part of the Office of Open Records Final Determination decision that the Borough shall give me financial records of revenue from outside the Borough and the Resolution or Ordinance that states when the Borough Council voted to charge Electric customers the revenue that was originally a statement of minimum charge.
You will have to address this situation sooner or later.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc; Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Mooney
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Gennaro A. MarinoP.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Kmayor@ptd.net
Mayor Sandy Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
At the Court of Common Pleas February 8, 2011 Hearing Solicitor Mooney stated anyone who would like to see the financial status of the Telecommunications should go to the Borough’s Mandatory Annual Audit and figure the profit or loss by totaling the revenue and expenditures of Telecom. He stated that is all anyone needs to see the finances of Telecom. That is how municipalities provide financial records and budget.
If you go to the Borough’s website and click on Finance, then click on Cable Franchise Agreement with Service Electric 2010. You will see;
Page 5 Para. 2.3 QUARTERLY PAYMENTS. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a written report containing an accurate statement of the applicable Service Electric’s Gross Revenues received for Cable Services for the quarter in connection with the operation of Service Electric’s Cable System and a brief report showing the basis for computation of fees. The report shall contain a line item for every applicable source of revenue received from each applicable source. The report shall be verified by a financial representative of Service Electric.
Page 6 Para. 2.4 (a) AUDITS. On an annual basis, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Service Electric, the Municipality shall have the right to conduct an independent audit or franchise fee revenue of Service Electric’s records reasonably related to the sources, amounts and computation of Gross Revenues in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Such Financial records shall be kept or made available to the Municipality at the local notice location for Service Electric specified in Section 13.3 below. The municipality and its representatives reviewing Service Electric’s financial records shall take reasonable and prudent steps to comply with all Applicable Law governing subscriber privacy and confidentiality of personally identifiably information.
Page 6 Para. 2.4 (c) AUDITS. The Municipality’s right to audit and Service Electric’s obligation to retain financial records related to franchise fee audit shall expire four (4) years after each franchise fee payment has been made to the Municipality, after which period any such payment shall be considered final.
It seems like you and Solicitor Mooney know the proper scheme to incorporate the Right to Know Law into your agreement with Service Electric.
This agreement with Service Electric justifies my Right to Know Request and confirms the Final Decision of the Office of Open Records. This proves you and Solicitor Mooney know what a financial report is and in Court all Solicitor Mooney offered me was the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit for the financial records of Telecom.
Solicitor Mooney did not fully address the part of the Office of Open Records Final Determination decision that the Borough shall give me financial records of revenue from outside the Borough and the Resolution or Ordinance that states when the Borough Council voted to charge Electric customers the revenue that was originally a statement of minimum charge.
You will have to address this situation sooner or later.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc; Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Mooney
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Court Of Common pleas 2-10-11
February 10, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
kmayor@ptd.net
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Sandy Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials.
I did not see any of you in the Court of Common Pleas February 8, 2011 when I petitioned the Court to enforce the Office of Open Records Final Determination. But you sent Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney with your feeble and lame excuses which were the same feeble and lame as excuses he presented to the Office of Open Records which they rejected.
You are violating the Borough’s Right to Know Ordinance No. 16-2008 of which states under SECTION 3, Section 170-1D FINANCIAL RECORDS are described as;
1. Any account, voucher or contract dealing with a receipt or disbursement of funds by the Borough or the Borough’s acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies, materials, equipment or property.
2. A financial audit report performed on behalf of the borough, however, this term does not include the work papers underlying the audit.
The above two paragraphs confirm that the Borough should fulfill my Right to Know Request.
I would also like to point out that the Borough Code states Service Electric, the Borough’s cableTV, internet and telephone provider, for the purposes of administering this ordinance shall;
A230-11 RECORD KEEPING, COMPANY OFFICE
A. Keep and render its books and records in a manner which will permit the drawing off of a detailed financial statement therefrom clearly disclosing the amount of rentals received by the company arriving at the determination of the gross receipts rentals as heretofore set forth.
Why don’t you follow Borough Code (above) that you legislated for Service Electric Cable. This also demonstrates you know the law and are knowingly and deliberately violating the Borough Code.
You have arrogantly decided to violate the Borough Code and a Borough Ordinance to keep the true financial status of the Telecommunications Department from the public.
There is no way that you will legally keep these financial records from the public.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc: Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Mooney
The Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
kmayor@ptd.net
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Sandy Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials.
I did not see any of you in the Court of Common Pleas February 8, 2011 when I petitioned the Court to enforce the Office of Open Records Final Determination. But you sent Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney with your feeble and lame excuses which were the same feeble and lame as excuses he presented to the Office of Open Records which they rejected.
You are violating the Borough’s Right to Know Ordinance No. 16-2008 of which states under SECTION 3, Section 170-1D FINANCIAL RECORDS are described as;
1. Any account, voucher or contract dealing with a receipt or disbursement of funds by the Borough or the Borough’s acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies, materials, equipment or property.
2. A financial audit report performed on behalf of the borough, however, this term does not include the work papers underlying the audit.
The above two paragraphs confirm that the Borough should fulfill my Right to Know Request.
I would also like to point out that the Borough Code states Service Electric, the Borough’s cableTV, internet and telephone provider, for the purposes of administering this ordinance shall;
A230-11 RECORD KEEPING, COMPANY OFFICE
A. Keep and render its books and records in a manner which will permit the drawing off of a detailed financial statement therefrom clearly disclosing the amount of rentals received by the company arriving at the determination of the gross receipts rentals as heretofore set forth.
Why don’t you follow Borough Code (above) that you legislated for Service Electric Cable. This also demonstrates you know the law and are knowingly and deliberately violating the Borough Code.
You have arrogantly decided to violate the Borough Code and a Borough Ordinance to keep the true financial status of the Telecommunications Department from the public.
There is no way that you will legally keep these financial records from the public.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
cc: Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Kutztown Solicitor Mooney
The Office of Open Records
The Reading Eagle
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
NEWSLETTER #3 2-8-11
NEWSLETTER # 3
February 8, 2011
I went to the Court of Common Pleas in Reading today to petition the Court to enforce the Final Determination by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which stated that the Borough of Kutztown shall give me the financial records I requested. All the Borough’s objections were the same excuses they presented and were rejected by the Office of Open Records. They presented no new objections. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl reserved decision.
It was very enlightening to hear the Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney state:
a) Municipalities do not keep financial records as do private firm.
b) All you have to see is total revenue and expenditures and not show how and where they were listed and totaled up.
c) Telecom is not a separate entity but the same as other Borough Utilities.
Isn’t it amazing that the Borough refuses to make the finances of Telecom public and is in Court to avoid the enforcement of the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. It is ironic because the Kutztown Borough Code is very strict and specific in dealing with Service Electric Cable, the cable TV and internet provider, in the Borough. The Borough Code Chapter 230 reads as follow; I quote from the Code
A230-11 RECORD KEEPING; COMPANY OFFICE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING THIS ORDINANCE THE COMPANY SHALL;
A. KEEP AND RENDER ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS IN A MANNER WHICH WILL PERMIT THE DRAWING OFF OF A DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENT THEREFROM CLEARLY DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT OF RENTALS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY ARRIVING AT THE DETERMINATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS RENTALS AS HERETOFORE SET FORTH.
The Borough just wants to simply draw off the information with no effort. The Borough stated in Court that if anyone wants the financial records of Telecom in the Borough they can pick the figures out of the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit and calculate the difference.
Why doesn’t the Borough hold themselves to the same standards they demand from the local cable TV and internet provider?
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
February 8, 2011
I went to the Court of Common Pleas in Reading today to petition the Court to enforce the Final Determination by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which stated that the Borough of Kutztown shall give me the financial records I requested. All the Borough’s objections were the same excuses they presented and were rejected by the Office of Open Records. They presented no new objections. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl reserved decision.
It was very enlightening to hear the Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney state:
a) Municipalities do not keep financial records as do private firm.
b) All you have to see is total revenue and expenditures and not show how and where they were listed and totaled up.
c) Telecom is not a separate entity but the same as other Borough Utilities.
Isn’t it amazing that the Borough refuses to make the finances of Telecom public and is in Court to avoid the enforcement of the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. It is ironic because the Kutztown Borough Code is very strict and specific in dealing with Service Electric Cable, the cable TV and internet provider, in the Borough. The Borough Code Chapter 230 reads as follow; I quote from the Code
A230-11 RECORD KEEPING; COMPANY OFFICE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING THIS ORDINANCE THE COMPANY SHALL;
A. KEEP AND RENDER ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS IN A MANNER WHICH WILL PERMIT THE DRAWING OFF OF A DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENT THEREFROM CLEARLY DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT OF RENTALS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY ARRIVING AT THE DETERMINATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS RENTALS AS HERETOFORE SET FORTH.
The Borough just wants to simply draw off the information with no effort. The Borough stated in Court that if anyone wants the financial records of Telecom in the Borough they can pick the figures out of the Borough’s mandatory Annual Audit and calculate the difference.
Why doesn’t the Borough hold themselves to the same standards they demand from the local cable TV and internet provider?
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
e-mail kmayor@ptd.net
Saturday, February 5, 2011
NEWSLETTER #2 2-6-11
NEWSLETTER #2
February 5, 2011
AT THE COURT ARGUMENT TUESDAY THE BOROUGH SHOULD MENTION THE FOLLOWING FROM THE BORUGH COUNCIL MINUTES OF 2002:
August 6, 2002 page 15896 “Mayor Marino stated that all residents are stockholders and that he wants to be updated monthly. Mr. Hill responded that if this is the direction in which Council would like to proceed, the Borough would need to hire a full time accountant”.
September 11, 2002 page 15937 Mr. Caruso stated “The paperwork that is done to justify what the Borough is spending is ridiculous. The idea of hiring a consultant is nonsense. Anyone that has a question concerning the spending should pick up a budget and follow the expenditures.
THE ABOVE MINUTES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BOROUGH NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE THE FINANCES OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC.
THERE’S MORE. ( TO BE CONT’D)
Gennaro A. Marino
www.marinoreport. com
February 5, 2011
AT THE COURT ARGUMENT TUESDAY THE BOROUGH SHOULD MENTION THE FOLLOWING FROM THE BORUGH COUNCIL MINUTES OF 2002:
August 6, 2002 page 15896 “Mayor Marino stated that all residents are stockholders and that he wants to be updated monthly. Mr. Hill responded that if this is the direction in which Council would like to proceed, the Borough would need to hire a full time accountant”.
September 11, 2002 page 15937 Mr. Caruso stated “The paperwork that is done to justify what the Borough is spending is ridiculous. The idea of hiring a consultant is nonsense. Anyone that has a question concerning the spending should pick up a budget and follow the expenditures.
THE ABOVE MINUTES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BOROUGH NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE THE FINANCES OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC.
THERE’S MORE. ( TO BE CONT’D)
Gennaro A. Marino
www.marinoreport. com
NEWSLETTER 2-5-11
NEWSLETTER
February 5, 2011
WHY IS THE BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN WASTING MONEY ON LEGAL FEES AND GOING TO COURT TO KEEP THE RECORDS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT FROM BEING MADE PUBLIC???
THE BOROUGH’S ANSWER TO THE COURT IS THE SAME AS THE INFORMATION SENT TO THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS WHICH WAS REJECTED AND A “FINAL DETERMINATION” WAS RENDED IN WHICH THEY STATED THAT THE BOROUGH SHALL ISSUE ME THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT THAT I REQUESTED.
THE RECORDS OF TELECOM THAT I HAVE REQUESTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED PERIODICALLY FROM ITS INCEPTION IN 2002.
THE BOROUGH DEFINITLY HAS A VERY GOOD REASON TO KEEP THESE RECORDS FROM THE PUBLIC.
I BROUGHT THIS COURT ACTION TO HAVE THE COURT ENFORCE THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS “FINAL DETERMINATION”. THIS ACTION IS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS
GENNARO A. MARINO P.E.
WWW.MARINOREPORT.COM
February 5, 2011
WHY IS THE BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN WASTING MONEY ON LEGAL FEES AND GOING TO COURT TO KEEP THE RECORDS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT FROM BEING MADE PUBLIC???
THE BOROUGH’S ANSWER TO THE COURT IS THE SAME AS THE INFORMATION SENT TO THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS WHICH WAS REJECTED AND A “FINAL DETERMINATION” WAS RENDED IN WHICH THEY STATED THAT THE BOROUGH SHALL ISSUE ME THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT THAT I REQUESTED.
THE RECORDS OF TELECOM THAT I HAVE REQUESTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED PERIODICALLY FROM ITS INCEPTION IN 2002.
THE BOROUGH DEFINITLY HAS A VERY GOOD REASON TO KEEP THESE RECORDS FROM THE PUBLIC.
I BROUGHT THIS COURT ACTION TO HAVE THE COURT ENFORCE THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS “FINAL DETERMINATION”. THIS ACTION IS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS
GENNARO A. MARINO P.E.
WWW.MARINOREPORT.COM
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Mooney reply
February 3, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
610-683-7977
kmayor@ptd.net
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council by name Eidle, Seyler, Schlegel, Snyder, Gangewere, Mace
Dear Elected Officials,
Today Thursday just 5 days before the Borough will attend a hearing on the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records I received a copy of a letter from Kutztown Borough to the Court of Common Pleas by Solicitor Mooney requesting the Court of Common Pleas deny my petition for the Final Determination enforcement.
In the Letter Solicitor Mooney states I already have been provided with the information I requested. The Office of Open Records then ruled that the information given me did not satisfy my request and issued the Final Determination to provide me with the financial records of the Telecommunication Department.
You are all aware of the fact that the Borough does not want to make public the finances of Telecommunications which is a violation of the Borough Code. Telecommunications is a business venture, a separate entity, and not a Borough Department as Solicitor Mooney has previously stated.
Revenue and Expenditures from the Telecommunications Department can not be intermingled with any other department or utility of the Borough.
Your scheme to withhold the finances of Telecommunications is an embarrassment to the Borough and the financial records will be made public eventually.
I will present my case in Court Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 2PM.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
610-683-7977
kmayor@ptd.net
www.marinoreport.com
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council by name Eidle, Seyler, Schlegel, Snyder, Gangewere, Mace
Dear Elected Officials,
Today Thursday just 5 days before the Borough will attend a hearing on the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records I received a copy of a letter from Kutztown Borough to the Court of Common Pleas by Solicitor Mooney requesting the Court of Common Pleas deny my petition for the Final Determination enforcement.
In the Letter Solicitor Mooney states I already have been provided with the information I requested. The Office of Open Records then ruled that the information given me did not satisfy my request and issued the Final Determination to provide me with the financial records of the Telecommunication Department.
You are all aware of the fact that the Borough does not want to make public the finances of Telecommunications which is a violation of the Borough Code. Telecommunications is a business venture, a separate entity, and not a Borough Department as Solicitor Mooney has previously stated.
Revenue and Expenditures from the Telecommunications Department can not be intermingled with any other department or utility of the Borough.
Your scheme to withhold the finances of Telecommunications is an embarrassment to the Borough and the financial records will be made public eventually.
I will present my case in Court Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 2PM.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Court of Comm. Pleas- Council 1-29-11
January 29, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
In my post of January 13, 2011 I accused all of you and others of conspiring to keep all financial records and statistics of Telecommunications from being made public. My last post of January 20, 2011 is a scan of the Court of Common Pleas order for you, the Borough of Kutztown, to appear and hear the Court enforce the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.
As of this day I have not received a reply or comment from my many letters to you or my requests to the Office of Open Records with which I have copied you. Rumor has it that the Borough Solicitor told you not to answer my letters.
I would like to remind you that no financial reports exist on Telecom. There has never been any type of financial report published on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002.
Solicitor Mooney already has presented your case and the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records has decided the Borough should produce the records requested.
I hope to see all of you and your supporters in Court Tuesday February 8, 2011 at 2PM.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
In my post of January 13, 2011 I accused all of you and others of conspiring to keep all financial records and statistics of Telecommunications from being made public. My last post of January 20, 2011 is a scan of the Court of Common Pleas order for you, the Borough of Kutztown, to appear and hear the Court enforce the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.
As of this day I have not received a reply or comment from my many letters to you or my requests to the Office of Open Records with which I have copied you. Rumor has it that the Borough Solicitor told you not to answer my letters.
I would like to remind you that no financial reports exist on Telecom. There has never been any type of financial report published on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002.
Solicitor Mooney already has presented your case and the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records has decided the Borough should produce the records requested.
I hope to see all of you and your supporters in Court Tuesday February 8, 2011 at 2PM.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Court of Common Pleas 2-8-11
GENNARO A. MARINO,
Plaintiff
v.
BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN,
Defendant
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 10-23778
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, P .J ..
AND NOW, this 10TH day of January, 2011, upon consideration of
Plaintiff's Petition to Enforce Final Determination,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an Argument is scheduled for Tuesday.
February 8, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 7B, Seventh Floor, Berks County
Courthouse, Reading, Pennsylvania.
Certified Distribution:
Gennaro A. Marino, SRL
Borough of Kutztown
;:;I
I'.) xxx ::v
-i
"
2::D
:z r
'
-
..
Plaintiff
v.
BOROUGH OF KUTZTOWN,
Defendant
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 10-23778
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, P .J ..
AND NOW, this 10TH day of January, 2011, upon consideration of
Plaintiff's Petition to Enforce Final Determination,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an Argument is scheduled for Tuesday.
February 8, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 7B, Seventh Floor, Berks County
Courthouse, Reading, Pennsylvania.
Certified Distribution:
Gennaro A. Marino, SRL
Borough of Kutztown
;:;I
I'.) xxx ::v
-i
"
2::D
:z r
'
-
..
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Sewer Plant update 1-20-11
January 20, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Kutztown Borough Council
Kutztown Borough Hall
Gentlemen,
The article in today’s Reading Eagle about the $5.5 million Kutztown Sewage Treatment Plant update by Ron Devlin was very informative. Councilman Schlegel stated he wants to be up front and that water and sewer rates will be increased. He stated he did not know how much the increase would be because it hasn’t been bid. The real reason he does not know the rate increase is because he and the rest of the Council have not figured out where the funds will come from. You all vote for the $5.5 million project without having any idea where the money will come from or how it will be raised. The Borough does not have any funds in reserve or funds set aside for such a disaster or for an electrical department transformer burnout. Councilman Schlegel if you inform Spotts Stevens & McCoy of the type of financing for the project they can estimate the rate increase based on the $5.5 million construction estimate.
The Borough has never set aside funds for any type of utility breakdown or any unforeseen emergency. Councilman Schlegel, you made sure the article stated that part of the update was mandated by the State Department of Environmental Protection. Let’s face it funds should also have been set aside for new DEP updates.
What you didn’t say was the Borough debt is presently about $13 million and the annual debt payment is about $1.2 million a year.( about $25,000 a week) If the Borough borrows $5.5 million at the same rate of the present debt the annual payment for the $5.5 million will be about $500,000 a year. (a little less than $10,000 a week) The borough debt will be about $18.5 million? The Borough debt will just about be equal to the Borough Budget and if the debt payment were paid weekly the payment would be about $35,000 a week.
Please note this is grade school arithmetic, and you, the Borough Council, have created this financial disaster and better find a way to resolve it.
You can apply for grants from the state. Please keep the public up front on how you propose to finance this project. Thank you.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Kutztown Borough Council
Kutztown Borough Hall
Gentlemen,
The article in today’s Reading Eagle about the $5.5 million Kutztown Sewage Treatment Plant update by Ron Devlin was very informative. Councilman Schlegel stated he wants to be up front and that water and sewer rates will be increased. He stated he did not know how much the increase would be because it hasn’t been bid. The real reason he does not know the rate increase is because he and the rest of the Council have not figured out where the funds will come from. You all vote for the $5.5 million project without having any idea where the money will come from or how it will be raised. The Borough does not have any funds in reserve or funds set aside for such a disaster or for an electrical department transformer burnout. Councilman Schlegel if you inform Spotts Stevens & McCoy of the type of financing for the project they can estimate the rate increase based on the $5.5 million construction estimate.
The Borough has never set aside funds for any type of utility breakdown or any unforeseen emergency. Councilman Schlegel, you made sure the article stated that part of the update was mandated by the State Department of Environmental Protection. Let’s face it funds should also have been set aside for new DEP updates.
What you didn’t say was the Borough debt is presently about $13 million and the annual debt payment is about $1.2 million a year.( about $25,000 a week) If the Borough borrows $5.5 million at the same rate of the present debt the annual payment for the $5.5 million will be about $500,000 a year. (a little less than $10,000 a week) The borough debt will be about $18.5 million? The Borough debt will just about be equal to the Borough Budget and if the debt payment were paid weekly the payment would be about $35,000 a week.
Please note this is grade school arithmetic, and you, the Borough Council, have created this financial disaster and better find a way to resolve it.
You can apply for grants from the state. Please keep the public up front on how you propose to finance this project. Thank you.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Telecom Right to Know 1-12-11
January 12, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Kutztown Telecom Advisory Commission
Kutztown Borough Manager\ Treasurer\RTK Officer Khalife
Kutztown Information Technology Director Caruso
Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney\Barley Snyder
Kutztown Independent Auditor Long & Barrell
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You are all involved in a scheme to keep all financial records and statistics of Telecom from the public. You are also defying the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which orders you to publish the financial records of Telecom for 2008 and 2009 plus additional information. You are all guilty of violating the Commonwealth Right to Know Law. I am in the process of getting the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the Order.
I notice you call meetings, put out bids for new equipment, retain marketing specialists, make new policies and invest more funds in Telecom without ever seeing a financial report on this business venture. You are also aware of Solicitor Mooney’s letter to the Office of Open Records where he stated Telecom was a department of the Borough as is the water, sewer and electric. That is an out and out lie. Telecom is a business venture, and not a utility, that can generate a profit or incur a loss. In this same letter Counselor Mooney also states it would be a herculean task for the Borough to list all the expenditures for Telecom for 2008 and 2009 for Mr. Marino. You all know that revenues and expenditures in all businesses are totaled periodically and at the end of the year. Therefore the expenditures do not have to be totaled for me, they should exist.
My opinion is that Telecom loses about $1 million a year and has lost $1 million a year since its inception in 2002. The facts are that the Borough Debt is $13 million and if the loan was paid weekly the payment would be about $25,000 a week
You keep spending more and more money every year and continue to raise all the Borough utility rates, fees and permits. The latest was the electricity rate which was raised 6.5% and Council President Eidle stated the raise was due to the increased cost of electricity. Then he states 3% of the increase would go into the General Fund. Before the rate increase the Borough’s electricity rate was about double the rate of the surrounding area.
My opinion is that the Borough is defying the Order of the Office of Open Records because the budget is falsified and the Borough publishes fraudulent financial reports. Revenue and expenditures from the General Fund and the utilities are illegally totaled together with Telecom to mask the losses of Telecom Department.
I am sure the Court of Common Pleas will prevail and you will have to publish the records. Remember I requested information that should have been published periodically legally not records that are not required to be made public.
It is time for you all to explain to the Borough residents what you are doing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Kutztown Telecom Advisory Commission
Kutztown Borough Manager\ Treasurer\RTK Officer Khalife
Kutztown Information Technology Director Caruso
Kutztown Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney\Barley Snyder
Kutztown Independent Auditor Long & Barrell
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You are all involved in a scheme to keep all financial records and statistics of Telecom from the public. You are also defying the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which orders you to publish the financial records of Telecom for 2008 and 2009 plus additional information. You are all guilty of violating the Commonwealth Right to Know Law. I am in the process of getting the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the Order.
I notice you call meetings, put out bids for new equipment, retain marketing specialists, make new policies and invest more funds in Telecom without ever seeing a financial report on this business venture. You are also aware of Solicitor Mooney’s letter to the Office of Open Records where he stated Telecom was a department of the Borough as is the water, sewer and electric. That is an out and out lie. Telecom is a business venture, and not a utility, that can generate a profit or incur a loss. In this same letter Counselor Mooney also states it would be a herculean task for the Borough to list all the expenditures for Telecom for 2008 and 2009 for Mr. Marino. You all know that revenues and expenditures in all businesses are totaled periodically and at the end of the year. Therefore the expenditures do not have to be totaled for me, they should exist.
My opinion is that Telecom loses about $1 million a year and has lost $1 million a year since its inception in 2002. The facts are that the Borough Debt is $13 million and if the loan was paid weekly the payment would be about $25,000 a week
You keep spending more and more money every year and continue to raise all the Borough utility rates, fees and permits. The latest was the electricity rate which was raised 6.5% and Council President Eidle stated the raise was due to the increased cost of electricity. Then he states 3% of the increase would go into the General Fund. Before the rate increase the Borough’s electricity rate was about double the rate of the surrounding area.
My opinion is that the Borough is defying the Order of the Office of Open Records because the budget is falsified and the Borough publishes fraudulent financial reports. Revenue and expenditures from the General Fund and the utilities are illegally totaled together with Telecom to mask the losses of Telecom Department.
I am sure the Court of Common Pleas will prevail and you will have to publish the records. Remember I requested information that should have been published periodically legally not records that are not required to be made public.
It is time for you all to explain to the Borough residents what you are doing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)