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.
Monday, March 28, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
