Norco Council To Use Gambling Funds for Tax Relief, Not Public Health

In June, during a rare joint meeting of Lehigh County Commissioners and Northampton County Council, a new bureaucracy was born - the Lehigh Valley Health Bureau. Funded exclusively by a private $1 million grant, public health professionals are currently meeting to provide the Lehigh Valley's first ever regional approach to health.

Now, in the wake of a recession as well as a proposed 9.3% tax increase in Northampton County, is a bi-county health department still a good idea? Council members Ron Angle and Lamont McClure, who have both opposed this concept since its inception, last night tried to kill it. Here are excerpts from what different council members said, as well as an exchange between Angle and County Bossman John Stoffa.

Ron Angle: "It almost reminds me of the people who have the guy sizing up the yard for the inground pool when they're eight months behind on their mortgage. ... I make a motion that we abolish the bi-county health agency until such time as we have an economy that we can afford to pay a dime. ... It's criminal that we take those people's time serving there who are believing that somehow, we are going to at some point approve it. ... A lot of you are hoping this somehow goes away or dies. That's not leadership. Leadership is when you take the bull by the horns and you do something that needs to be done and you do it whether it's popular or unpopular, it needs to be done."

Lamont McClure: "There is no money set aside for the bi-county health bureau. What I do notice is that it's projected we are going to take in about $1.2 million in casino revenues that would be discretionary to the county. The only reason I ever supported gaming in Northampton County was because of the original promise of the Act, which was property tax reduction.

"We're now being told that we need to raise taxes a mill. Take the $1.2 million, and knock off some of the $7.3 million, as opposed to what we're doing, because it's not in the budget, is ferreting this money away for future expenses on the health bureau.

"Here's $1.2 million, right off the top. Some of you may think a tax increase is necessary - I do not and I'll explain why - but this is a good start so I'll second Mr. Angle's motion."

Joe Capozzolo: "I have my concerns about it, too, and I don't want tax dollars to be spent on this. The reason I voted for it at the time is because they were using private funds. If it wasn't for the fact they were using private funds, I wouldn't have voted for that budget. I don't like that budget. I don't know if we can actually stop them now. I agree with you that they are wasting time. I don't think you're going to have enough votes. I would agree with your motion even though I voted for it that night and I think they should use the private funds to find out how much it should cost. But when it comes to paying for it with public funds, then it should stop."

Jerry Seyfried: "You're talking about some pretty stiff tax increases. However, you have come this far, why wouldn't you wait and see what the final report is, and also, if there's a dollar amount attached to it?

"This is supposed to be done in the next couple of months if I'm not mistaken. ... [A] lot of time and effort gone into this. If you believe that you are going to have a bi-county health board and you are not going to have to fund it, then I would think you also believe in the tooth fairy and might be living in la la land. It's going to cost money. There's no doubt in my mind. But I want to see what the report says, and if they come in to us with a report that says they have funding from other sources and it's not going to cost you any money, I think you have a decision to make."

Charles Dertinger: "We have charged a group of people to come up with an answer to a question, to provide us a scenario as to how this may or may not work. I think it's incredibly discourteous to tell them, 'Thank you for all your work so far, we really don't want to know the answer to the question.'"

Mike Dowd: "They are volunteers who have spent their time thus far. If they're prepared to continue to do the research, I'm not sure why we would be so discourteous to say we don't want to have the benefit of their research. If we find out the cost is an unacceptable cost, then we have to vote to say yea, we have to vote to say no. I think we're all mature enough to be able to do that."

John Stoffa: "I have never preferred tax money for this project. It would be the casino money if and when we need it. ... [T]o short-circuit that until you know whether or not they can do that [without cost], I think, is foolhardy. We can always say no later on."

Angle: "Do you really believe that the state, in the conditions it's in, is going to furnish the money to run a health department and do you really think we can run this like it's a buffet and we can just pick a little here and a little there? ... You said from square one, which is cockamamie, quite frankly, is you're only going to put the gambling money in, and how far it goes, it goes. You can't run a health department that way."

Stoffa: "Why not?"

Angle: "It would be nUtZ is why."

When all the shouting was over, the only two council members who voted to kill the bi-county health bureau were McClure and Angle.

That's when Angle pulled out his real play, proposing that casino money be dedicated to tax relief. Dertinger called the motion "intellectually dishonest," stating we'd just get the money for public health from somewhere else. Angle objected to what he considered a personal attack, at which point junior college grad Dertinger snarked, "I understand these may be big words for you."

McClure agreed with Angle for the second time in one night, noting the resolution is meaningless but would tell the Executive that Council wants gambling money restricted to property tax relief. The three incumbents seeking re-election - Dertinger, Ferraro and Cusick - voted against the motion, joined by Dowd.