Decision expected next week
By: Cara Latham
WASHINGTON The members of the Municipal Utilities Authority are expected to vote next week on whether to dissolve the authority.
Because the July 11 meeting held through conference call was a special meeting, members could not vote on the matter then, so they scheduled a vote for 2 p.m. July 18, said John Pidgeon, the attorney representing the authority.
The meeting is scheduled "for the sole purpose of consenting to dissolution," Mr. Pidgeon said Thursday.
Even if the MUA which controls the township’s sewage disposal, pipes and pump stations for an estimated 5,000 customers does vote to dissolve itself, the move still has to be approved by the state Local Finance Board, according to Township Administrator Mary Caffrey.
The Township Council already voted 3-2 in March in favor of dissolving the MUA, with former council members Ronda Hyams and Larry Schneider dissenting. Council members in favor of the move said it potentially could save the township an estimated $183,000.
But if there’s a vote from MUA members themselves in favor of dissolution, combined with the Township Council’s approval, "then there would be less likelihood of any resistance from the state," Ms. Caffrey said Thursday.
Township Attorney Mark Roselli said Thursday that in order for the township to apply for dissolution, it doesn’t legally need the consenting vote of the MUA, but "it would be helpful if the Local Finance Board was made aware of the fact that MUA members were in support of it."
"It’s a fairly routine transaction," Ms. Caffrey said. "The biggest issue is usually how to deal with the debt (associated with the entity), and we don’t have any debt."
She said she also believes the township has a stronger case with the Local Finance Board because there’s a compelling public purpose to move the MUA under township control.
"A (township) council has more authority to get the sewer lines going on Route 130 than the MUA does," Ms. Caffrey said, adding it will help the redevelopment process there.
The township has yet to file the application to appear before the Local Finance Board this would be the fifth time in about a year and a half the township would appear before the board but Ms. Caffrey said if the MUA passes the resolution for dissolution, the township expects to file the application within the next week or two, and then the board will schedule a hearing. Hearings are usually held on the second Wednesday of every month.
If the Local Finance Board grants approval, the next step would be for the Township Council to pass an ordinance for dissolution, Mr. Roselli said.
Former MUA Vice Chairwoman Cathy St. John, who opposes dissolution, said Thursday that members of the public were not given enough notice about the meeting scheduled for next week, and that she disagreed with aspects of the process.
She said she didn’t understand "how the two new members (of the MUA) could be voting on the resolution given they haven’t been on the board very long."
In March, the Township Council appointed Jim Guididas to the MUA, and at its reorganization meeting July 1, the council appointed Jack Oszvart. Mr. Oszvart replaced Ms. St. John, who resigned June 8, citing her frustration with trying to get the MUA business done.
Ms. St. John said Thursday, "Unfortunately, I think the public is better served when a public body is voting on something so important that the members are actually in the room."
She also said she was concerned that Township Council President David Boyne would be voting on the issue twice, since he also sits on the MUA.
It "may not be legally a conflict, but I think it’s not good public policy, not good governance," she said. "I think there’s a conflict, and, quite frankly, to vote in this matter is totally disrespectful to the public’s involvement in the process."
She said she hopes the MUA will rethink voting for dissolution and that it should wait until its August meeting, when there will be more opportunity for the public to attend.
She said she also hopes the Local Finance Board will consider the process followed to take the vote.
"It doesn’t legally violate the sunshine law, but I think it violates the spirit of that law," she said.

