Luzerne County approves demolition and rehabilitation fund; supporters say it fights blight, critics warn of process and oversight risks
Loading...
Summary
Luzerne County Council approved an ordinance creating a county demolition and rehabilitation fund financed by fees collected at tax and judicial sales, a measure supporters say will help fight blight and critics say needs clearer process and guardrails.
Luzerne County Council voted to establish a county demolition and rehabilitation fund financed by a fee imposed on purchasers at real‑estate tax and judicial sales.
The ordinance, advanced under language referencing Act 48 of 2024, authorizes the Tax Claim Bureau or its agents and the County Sheriff to collect a fee from successful purchasers at sales and deposits the receipts into a county demolition/rehab fund maintained by the county treasurer in an interest‑bearing account. The ordinance allows council to approve funds for contracts with nonprofit or for‑profit entities, redevelopment authorities, land banks or other government entities for demolition or rehabilitation projects.
What supporters said: Council members who backed the ordinance said the fund would give the county a dedicated source to tackle long‑standing blight, pointing to past work by the Blighted Property Review Committee and the Greater Pittston redevelopment authority’s activity in the area. One councilor said he supported the idea in spirit but urged the county to strengthen processes to ensure the dollars are used for blight abatement.
What critics and public commenters said: Controller Griffith objected to the process and argued the charter (Section 5.10) reserves introduction authority for council and that the ordinance should have been introduced by four members. Public commenter Mark Raybo and other critics warned the fee (noted in the draft as $100 with authority to increase to $250) risked becoming a "slush fund" without clearer restrictions; Raybo recommended adding the 90‑day statutory effective‑date language to align with state law.
Key provisions and oversight mechanics: Council discussed language in Section 5 requiring deposits be made by the treasurer into an interest‑bearing bank account and that disbursements could be made by contract to a nonprofit, redevelopment authority, land bank, or other entities. Manager Crocomo and other staff said the treasurer and budget/finance office would oversee the account; council requested clearer governance and process documents to accompany implementation.
Vote and next steps: After debate, council approved the ordinance by roll call (8 yes, 1 no). Council asked staff to draft implementation procedures and to clarify how funds would be allocated and how municipalities and existing land‑bank organizations would be engaged.
