126265193_web1_WB-police-car-graphic

Wilkes-Barre man arraigned on marijuana possession charge

126265876_web1_Pedricmyk.jpeg

Luzerne County may have new election director this month

WILKES-BARRE &mdash; Mayor George Brown onWednesday exercised his veto power over the 2021 budget amended by a majority of City Council, setting the stage for another showdown over funding the day-t0-day operations of Wilkes-Barre.
				Brown objected to the budget approved by council members Tony Brooks, John Marconi and Beth Gilbert McBride and doubted the city&rsquo;s revenues would come out $1.1 million ahead of expenses this year based on their numbers.
				&ldquo;Given the city&rsquo;s financial condition, projecting a year-end surplus is unrealistic,&rdquo; Brown said in a <a href="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/letternew.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prepared </a><a href="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/letternew.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">statement</a>.
				The mayor&rsquo;s decision moves the budget he proposed back in October to the forefront, but with fees lowered by the council majority last month when the amended version was approved.
				&ldquo;I realize that my budget will be partially underfunded because of the projections for sewer and recycling fees,&rdquo; Brown said. &ldquo;However, I promise city residents I will keep a diligent eye on city revenues and expenditures in 2021 and will do everything in my power to continue to provide the same services our residents both deserve and expect.&rdquo;
				Brooks, Marconi and McBride reacted by announcing they intend to drop the fees to $50. They continued to fault the mayor and his administration for failing to work with them, questioning whether the wrong numbers were deliberately inserted into their budget.
				The amended budget included revenue line items with fees higher than what the council majority approved, resulting in revenues of $53.9 million compared to $52.8 million in expenses.
				&ldquo;To be frank, we are unsure if the conduct of the administration would be misfeasance or malfeasance. We do not know whether this was truly a clerical error, or if it was intentional in an attempt to undermine the legislative branch of our city government. For this reason we will be working to pursue an investigation into this matter,&rdquo; the council majority said in its prepared response.
				Brown dismissed the statement. &ldquo;This is grade-school bantering back and forth,&rdquo; he said.
				The mayor reiterated the council majority was responsible for making sure the correct numbers were included in their amended budget.
				&ldquo;We had nothing to do with their amended budget. They worked directly with city Finance Director Brett Kittrick. It&rsquo;s their error in not responding to Brett&rsquo;s email,&rdquo; Brown said, referring to Kittrick&rsquo;s email the day before the budget vote asking if there should be additional changes made to balance the budget and eliminate the surplus.
				Brown&rsquo;s veto came in ahead of the 10 days the City Charter set for him to act on the Dec. 29 budget ordinance and list his objections. The Charter provided council with a response and attempt to override the veto at the next scheduled meeting on Jan. 14.
				It&rsquo;s not likely council will have the necessary four votes, however, because it had only three to amend the budget.
				Councilman Mike Belusko, who along with councilman Bill Barrett, supported Brown&rsquo;s budget from the start, said he&rsquo;s not changing his mind.
				&ldquo;I&rsquo;m sticking by the mayor,&rdquo; Belusko said, adding he doesn&rsquo;t expect another vote on the budget. &ldquo;I doubt if it will get on the agenda,&rdquo; he said.
				Barrett backed the mayor. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not changing my mind,&rdquo; he said.
				The annual fees Brown proposed led to the drawn out dispute between him and the council majority.
				Brown initially wanted to double the sewer and recycling fees to $100 to raise $2 million in revenue to balance his $53.2 million budget and avoid layoffs and cuts in services. The council majority pushed for him to go lower, eventually rejecting his reductions and settling on a rate of $75 for each.
				The three council members also cut overtime and workers compensation expenses each by $200,000, increased fine revenues by $100,000, raised the rental inspection fee to $100 from $75 and added $300,000 from the collection of past due sewer and recycling accounts to each of the fee revenues.
				The council majority explained the rationale for attempting to undo its work when it meets next week.
				&ldquo;We cannot, in good conscience, raise fees on the residents of our city if the mayor refuses to work with us. Therefore, we will be introducing an ordinance at our next meeting to lower both the sewer maintenance fee and the recycling fee to avoid an increase in these for 2021,&rdquo; the council majority said.

Brown vetoes amended budget, council responds