Luzerne County Council to vote on citizen-requested southern county tax break suspension

Luzerne County Council agreed to vote in two weeks on a citizen-requested suspension of future southern county real estate tax breaks.

Sugarloaf Township resident John Zola had urged council to impose the moratorium, arguing the potential loss of additional customers could put pressure on PPL Electric Utilities to change the route of its planned 12-mile, 500kV transmission line cutting through Nescopeck, Black Creek, Sugarloaf and Hazle townships.

Zola is among the residential property owners impacted by the current transmission line path and created the Alliance to Stop the Line group pushing for a different route.

PPL has easements for the line but needs to widen them to proceed, which means the utility must seek to exercise its eminent domain power if property owners won’t agree to expanded easements. PPL said in a letter to council the alternate routes are also within the Nescopeck/Sugarloaf Valley region and would “shift the impact from one group of landowners to another.”

Acting on the citizen request, county Councilman Harry Haas drafted a moratorium resolution placed on Tuesday’s work session agenda for discussion.

Haas said he believes the moratorium will “yield results” and force PPL “to the table.”

He predicted some of his council colleagues will oppose the moratorium based on arguments it would severely restrict development and send a message the county “is not open for business.”

“This is helping coerce a giant business interest who is concerned with bottom lines more than quality of life issues to come to the table and really just make it work,” Haas asserted.

PPL insisted in its letter that it is “committed to working closely with landowners to minimize impacts” in an approach that includes “fair compensation for easements, transparent communication and ongoing landowner and stakeholder engagement.” The project will require review and approval from the Public Utility Commission, and PPL anticipates construction will begin next spring.

Council members said PPL representatives want to meet with them in small groups in coming days to answer their questions. Haas said he wants to see maps and potential alternate routes.

In reply to Haas’ statements, council Chairman John Lombardo said Haas “kind of flippantly said” arguments will be made that a moratorium would reduce developers’ interest in the area, but that outcome is fact-based on feedback from economic development representatives.

Lombardo said he supports the current approach of researching and evaluating each tax break request individually and does not want a moratorium “scaring away development.”

Lombardo repeatedly stressed that he supports the citizens opposing the PPL plan and said he would continue pressing for more discussion on the alternate routes.

Lombardo said the moratorium would apply to breaks requested under the Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) program, which is only for blighted properties that include numerous coal mine-scarred sites in the county. He said these culm banks and pitted land are unsightly and dangerous, noting he has visited them “quite often” as an emergency responder for accidents involving all-terrain vehicles.

He supports redeveloping these tracts for “something that is more usable and safer for the community.”

Councilman Jimmy Sabatino said municipalities control determinations on which sites are declared blighted and eligible for LERTAs, which means residents should address concerns about tax break locations with their elected municipal officials.

Chief County Solicitor Harry W. Skene cautioned that the moratorium could be considered discriminatory because it would apply to only one region instead of countywide.

Haas said developers could still seek tax breaks from the applicable school district and municipality if a county moratorium is approved because the county does not have authority over those.

Councilman Greg Wolovich said the moratorium, as written, applies to all proposed projects “serviced by the Sugarloaf Transmission Project.” The county may be unable to delineate which projects would be serviced by that line, and the wording leaves room for interpretation, he said. There’s also no automatic repeal if the route of the line is changed, which could create confusion and uncertainty for future council members as the transmission line approval process progresses, he said.

County Manager Romilda Crocamo said she has been pressing for answers from PPL along with Lombardo, but she noted the “forum of the fight” for residents will be in clearances the utility must obtain from the PUC and Department of Environmental Protection.

The crowd at Tuesday’s council meeting made “very convincing arguments,” Crocamo said, adding that residents must present them to the “forum that exists to decide that.”

Zola reiterated that his group is fully aware of the PUC process but believes the residents have no chance of succeeding or money to fund a battle before the regulatory agency.

“I can kind of see where this seems to be heading,” Zola said in reference to council discussion on the moratorium. “It’s very disappointing.”

Zola said he does not believe a moratorium would stop development and described it as a “speed bump” that can be removed. Sometimes firm action is warranted to “get someone’s attention,” he told council.

Zola verified with Lombardo that council will be voting on the moratorium at its next meeting Sept. 9. Zola said he wants a prompt council vote, regardless of how it turns out, because PPL is expected to seek PUC approval soon.