The Board met Monday, March 17th, 2025, at 7:00 pm. As always, the solicitor reviewed the rules for public comments then the Board began its regular order.
The first order of business, as with every board meeting, is to vote on the minutes of the previous meeting and then the current bill list—the list of invoices the Township is scheduled to pay for the month. However, since July of 2024, Commissioner Paretti has voted “no” on every bill list other than November of 2024 and this evening was no exception. Commissioner Waldt has waffled back and forth voting yes sometimes and then voting “no” at other times.
What the chair and others have made clear several times is that the bill-paying approval is an appropriation action, not an authorization action. Authorization means approval of expenditures—a vote, for example, on the budget, on service agreements, or on projects; appropriation means paying the bills that already have been authorized. The appropriation of the funds is a check on the mechanics of the bill—correct amount, correct account.
Paretti’s target this time was charges made against a building expenditure line—an account line to centralize expenditures for control purposes that include engineering and project management costs. The Board had already authorized these expenditures in public votes. The vote authorized the Township to prepare bid packages for the municipal building project and solicit bids. The authorization of a bid package allows the architect, engineer, project manager, and solicitor to prepare and put out the specifications of a building project so potential contractors can bid on the project and put in an offer to build at a particular price. The authorization allows the expenditures for site measurements and preparations as well.
Paretti claimed she didn’t understand the process and again the solicitor told her that the expenditures were all authorized. Commissioner Read, in attempting to help Paretti to understand, stated “The lion’s share of the costs noted on the bill list were for getting the bid packet ready to go out and most of these costs are for the Gilbertsville Rd site.”
The Township authorized the Gilbertsville Rd site as an option while the primary site for the municipal building on Evans Rd is currently on appeal in the Commonwealth Court. In 2020, the Township selected the Evans Rd site as not only being the best location in the Township for the building but also to save costs. Two individuals brought suit against the Township in 2022 for selecting the Evan Rd site. In 2024 the Township bought the Gilbertville Rd property as a site option as well as to guard against overdevelopment with general fund dollars.
The Township lost the Evans Rd case with the judge citing the comingling of funds as a reason. The comingling of funds occurred well before any of the current members were on the Board. The plaintiffs suing the Township maintain that the Township can’t build on ground purchased with Open Space Tax revenue. The Township has argued that the general fund paid for over 1.7 million dollars of the 3 million dollars the Township borrowed to buy land and can apply the payment to the property it chooses. However, the Township’s primary argument has been that the elected Board determines what open space benefits are, not unelected individuals. The case is on appeal in the PA Commonwealth Court.
Paretti asked Read “Why are we spending money on Smola (Evans Rd site) if we are building on Gilbertsville Rd which we really didn’t vote on.” At this point, Commissioner Slinkerd asked “What do you mean we really didn’t vote on it? Yes, we did vote on it.” Paretti responded, “What did we vote on?” Slinkerd answered “Putting Gilbertville Rd out to bid.” Paretti then admitted to the Gilbertsville’s vote after Slinkerd reminded her that she lost that vote. The vote was held on the Gilbertville Rd site on November 6th, 2024.
Read then asked her if she was actually suggesting that the Township drop the appellant case. Paretti said “yes” and then cited cost. Read then explained that an appellant action is much less costly than Common Pleas Court and that the Township is following through with the appeal and that it owes it to the 6,000 residents in the Township to do so. Read also stated that a ballfield at Evans is an option as well given where the municipal building ends up. Paretti said she disagreed.
At this point in the meeting, Slinkerd explained that this is a bill list vote (an appropriation vote) and that “We are not going to continue to revote the same action over and over.” The township manager added—returning to the building project account line and a question Paretti had asked earlier—that the Township created the account line to list costs in one place. Paretti then asked about the budget generally; that was followed by the township manager explaining how the budget works with projects and grants.
After the township manager answered her budget question, Paretti added with a “huh.” Slinkerd then asked Paretti if she knew what the CRIM (Cash Reserve Investment Management) account was. She arrogantly responded “This is not a question-and-answer period” after she had been asking questions for the last ten minutes. She followed that up by saying “I know you like showing me up.”
Asked about the question concerning the CRIM account, Slinkerd stated after the meeting that “It is important that all commissioners understand our finances. In this case, the CRIM account has over nine million in it all invested in Treasury Bills to pay for the municipal building and to develop a third reserve.” Slinkerd continued, “She (Paretti) is asking questions as if she has no idea where the money is coming from for the building or how the budget works.”
Asked about the bill paying discussion after adjournment, Read commented “Cathy Paretti is using this part of the agenda to obstruct business because that is what others want her to do. Each time Hank, Trace, or I ask her about her statements or questions she immediately avoids answering and personally attacks whoever does as she did this evening.” Read went on to say, “She can’t defend her positions.”
Commissioner Llewellyn commented as well: “Once we vote to authorize an expenditure, then the staff moves to executes that expenditure. We don’t revote the item on the bill list—especially to impress others.” He went on to say “Paretti keeps trying to vote on the same authorized expenditure over and over.”
Llewellyn’s final comment was “I invite folks to come to our next Board meeting and watch the bill vote to see for yourself.” The next meeting is Monday, 21 April at 7:00.