Statement Validity: MISREPRESENTATIONS. First, the public does have a right to see how the premiums were paid by the mayor and the Borough is working with its banking institution to offer as much transparency as possible.

But the statement is already preparing to move the goalposts. In other words, the statement is written to lead readers into believing EVEN IF the Borough could provide the digital copy of the canceled checks from the mayor to the Borough (actually showing the check copy and communication with the bank) it’s likely a doctored reproduction and therefore, why believe it. It’s pushing conspiracy theories. So, the statement is setting an unreasonable standard of proof. The Borough will post what it can regarding this issue, when it can. This is a big deal because this statement, and many others referencing it in public forums, have suggested Borough officials committed actual crimes, which is patently false. This is why the burden of proof is set high by the statement. It doesn’t make the existence of the cancelled checks any less true.

Finally, a point of clarification regarding this statement: Checks received by the Borough for payment of any transaction have three-date stamps: 1) the date the check was entered into QuickBooks as a reimbursement or payment, 2) the actual date the check was sent to the bank for deposit, and 3) the date in which the check cleared the bank. All three dates will be different and will NOT be listed on the spreadsheets in public circulation regarding this issue. The spreadsheet is only listing the date the reimbursement was entered into QuickBooks and doesn’t tell a reader when the check was deposited in the bank or when the check actually cleared the bank. The statement is setting an unrealistic expectation that the cancelled checks must match the spreadsheet line for line, when it does not. The spreadsheet recorded information known to the Borough at a particular time.

UPDATED January 12, 2024! Below is the finalized accounting report of the Mirabito insurance premiums from 2018 to 2022 along with Delaware Valley Health Trust invoices, cancelled Mirabito checks, and the Borough’s General Fund bank account proving deposited monies:

Statement Validity: MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTING. The Borough, under state law (Title 8, Section 1202(8)(A)) is granted power to provide for the collection and imposition of reasonable fees and charges for the collection of garbage and other refuse material. Trash collection is an enterprising fund for which a fee is charged in exchange for a service. The Borough contracts with a waste hauler for the removal of municipal solid waste and recycling. The contractor has their set price for completing the work of waste/recycling hauler. This is the majority of what makes up the Borough trash bill fee.

The fee must also include the following: Preparing the bills, sending bills off for printing and postage, maintaining the billing ledger throughout the year (entering bill payments and making customers adjustments), coordinating billing delinquency activities and associate administrative tasks. In addition, the Borough contracts with the First Regional Composting Authority (FRCA). The Borough pays a contracting fee of between $10,000 and $13,000 annually to dispose of landscaping waste. This includes the collection of leaf waste by the Public Works Department in the fall. All of these incidental tasks have associated costs, which are added to the trash bill as a whole. It is a false comparison to evaluate a Borough’s tax rate with an enterprising fund service fee. The statement also falsely calculates a 2-mill increase is realized by paying the Boroughs trash bill. The calculation assumes ALL residents are paying the $495 (the 10% penalty rate) over the face value $450. In reality, a high number of rate payers will pay the face value and avoid the penalty. And to reiterate, trash bills are not tax assessment bills.

The attached document represents the estimated breakdown of costs to administer the Borough’s Municipal Waste Program. The costs were capped at $75.00 per unit, in addition to the Waste Hauler contracted price. This is how the Borough calculates the current 2023 trash bill of $450. There is a 10% penalty added to the bill if it is not paid on or before May 31st.

Council passes a Schedule of Fees Resolution each fall and can revisit fees for services.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. The statement makes an assumption that property tax rate adjustments in Bath are tied to the threshold of other municipalities raising taxes, which is untrue. Property tax rates adjustments occur at different points in time for any municipality. Just because Bath’s property tax rate increases when the majority of other municipalities retains a tax rate doesn’t mean anything. Bath Officials are setting small tax increases aside to keep up with inflation and the costs of operating. Bath Officials are also being more proactive to ensure capital projects can be funded and to avoid situations, where unfortunately, in Catasauqua, the property tax rate doubled in a year.

Statement Validity: MISREPRESENTATIONS and FALSE COMPARISONS. The statement is not comparing apples to apples. While true, the salaries of the mayor and council are fixed by state law, Bath’s employee payroll is not. Bath has increased the number of employees over time, conforming with Borough Council’s expectations of increased output, especially with Public Works operations. Bath employees are also granted annual raises tied to performance and economic factors. Bath employees deserve a standard of living that increases over time in an effort to attract and retain quality employees.

Statement Validity: FALSE. MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTING. This will be broken into three parts.

Part 1 – the Borough’s 2020 DCED-CLGS-30 was filed timely and approved by the state on 03/31/2021.

Part 2 – Audit Report numbers cannot be changed once transmitted to DCED unless DCED requires changes to the audit report.

Part 3 – The mayors insurance payments have nothing to do with custodial activities of the Borough. The statement makes a false comparison. Custodial activities are funds the Borough holds on behalf of a third party. The ‘custodial funds’ listed in the statement referencing $13,089 is a developer escrow expenses and reimbursements booked to the General Fund where it shouldn’t have been booked. This is called a ‘misstatement.’ And this is because Developer Escrow expense/repayment activity is not an expense or revenue of the General Ledger. In other words, its money that doesn’t belong to the Borough, at all. For instance, it’s money a developer sets aside with a municipality in developing a piece of property. The development requires plan approval with Borough engineering and legal review. Those instances are paid for by the developer and not the taxpayer. The misstatement was flagged by the Auditors and reported as corrected. So even though a developer’s expense was booked to the General Fund, it was reimbursed, and the record was corrected.

Statement Validity: FALSE. Bath’s 2020 DCED-CLGS-30 was filed with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) by the reporting deadline of April 1, 2021. The report was filed 03/31/2021 and DCED listed the report as ‘APPROVED’.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. Here is the history of the Borough property tax increase over the past 10 years:

1 – December 20, 2012, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2012-625 raising the General Fund millage from 12.5 mills to 13.5 mills.

2 – December 9, 2015, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2015-655 raising 1.25 mills in debt servicing (to make payments on loans). NOTE: The statement claims the debt service tax millage was established only temporary until the former Borough Hall was sold. FALSE. the Debt Service millage is in place to carry loans on capital infrastructure spending, as needed. Council also adopted a 0.25 mill tax for Fire Protection Services.

3 – November 8, 2021, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021-714 raising the Fire Protection Tax by another 0.25 mills, bringing the overall Fire Protection Tax to 0.50 mills.

4 – November 7, 2022, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022-725 raising the General-Purpose millage rate by 1.7 mills. Increasing from 13.5 mills to 15.2 mills.

The property tax increases from 2015 through 2021 were NOT for General Fund purposes. Nearly ten years later did the general purpose or ‘General Fund’ receive a tax increase.

Statement Validity: FALSE; MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTING. The conclusion maintains that a lack of accuracy exists within Bath’s budget and the evidence can be seen by referencing the ‘Auditing/Financial Services’ line (GL #402.00) of the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Reports. This will be further explained in three parts:

Part 1 – In 2017 and 2018, the Borough received auditing services by France, Anderson, Basile & Company, PC. (Auditing Firm ‘A’). At Councils request, between 2018 and 2019, the Borough switched to Campbell, Rappold, and Yurasits (Auditing Firm ‘B’). The two firms will differ on reportable data relative to the Audit Report – DCED-CLGS-30, GL line #402.00.

Part 2 – For example, Firm ‘A’ reported in both the 2017 and 2018 Audit Reports the actual costs of auditing services ONLY. So, the 2017 and 2018 reports represented Firm ‘A’s’ cost to the Borough under GL line expense #402.00 in the amount of $6,550 for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Firm ‘A’ did not consider any other GL’s for capturing all of the Financial Administration costs.

Firm ‘B’ considers ‘Financial Administration’ to include the following General Fund Budget vs. Actual GL accounts (for 2019): 402.00 ‘Auditing’ in the amount of $6,850.00; 405.12 ‘Office Administrator – Salary’ in the amount of $36,379.20; 405.13 ‘Office Administrator Bonus’ in the amount of $1,091.63; and 405.16 ‘Office Administrator Life Insurance’ in the amount of $98.67. Total 2019 Financial Administration reported on the DCED-CLGS-30 under GL #402.00 is $44,429 (rounded to the nearest dollar).

Firm ‘B’ calculated the 2020 DCED-CLGS-30 report in the same way, and adding two additional GL codes; 402.00 ‘Auditing Services/Bookkeeping’ in the amount of $13,475.00; 405.12 ‘Office Administrator Salary’ in the amount of $40,779.00; 405.13 ‘Office Administrator Bonus’ in the amount of $0.00; 405.16 ‘Office Administrator – Life Ins.’ in the amount of $107.00; 405.14 ‘Office Admin Vaca Payout’ in the amount of $912.00; and 405.15 ‘FT Secretary I – Health/Dental’ in the amount of $4,740.00. Total 2020 Financial Administration reported on the DCED-CLGS-30 under GL #402.00 is $60,013.00.

Part 3 – Without the above information, a reader wouldn’t know how the values in the Audit Report are derived. The reader also wouldn’t know that two auditing firms report budget presentations differently. Firm ‘A’ reported only one GL account in 2017 and 2018. Firm ‘B’ reported on four GL accounts in 2019 and six GL accounts in 2020. The auditing firms differ in capturing Financial Administration expenses. The reader wouldn’t have all the necessary information to understand the increase from $6,550 in 2017 and 2018 to $44,429 and $60,013, in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The statement misleads a reader into thinking the rise in auditing/financial services costs was related to a lack of budget accuracy when, in fact, it has nothing to do with budget accuracy.

Statement Validity: FALSE and DISINFORMATION. The statement is intentionally misleading and deceiving readers. This will be broken into three parts:

Part 1 – The statement argues that state law (53 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4601) prohibits a mayor or council member from receiving any compensation or financial gain from a municipality. First, the code 53 Pa. C.S.A Section 4601 doesn’t exist.

Assuming the statement meant to argue state code 53 P.S. Section 4601, that code references separate plans for each building, public or private relative to the location, size, and kind of pipe, traps, closets, and fixtures (plumbing details) to be used, where plans shall be filed with the local board of health, etc. Even this statue has nothing to do with health insurance benefits of a Borough employee or the mayor. Furthermore, 53 P.S. Section 4601 was repealed as to boroughs, incorporated towns and first-class townships by Section 1 of Act 78 enacted on May 17, 1939.

Part 2 – Bath is governed by state law under Title 8 Boroughs and Incorporated Towns. Borough Code Section 10A04(a.1) states that benefits provided to the mayor under Borough Code Section 1202(26) SHALL NOT be considered pay, salary or compensation, but payment for all or a part of the premiums or charges for the benefits shall be in accordance with Borough Code Section 1202(26).

Part 3 – Section 1202(26)(ii) grants Council the power to make contracts of insurance with any insurance company, association or exchange authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth insuring borough employees or any class or classes of employees, or mayor and council or their dependents, under a policy or policies of insurance covering life, health, hospitalization, medical and surgical service or accident insurance. Section 1202(26)(ii) is silent regarding who pays for all or part of the premiums or charges for the benefits. In Bath’s case, the mayor would reimburse the Borough for all of the premiums. While the Borough acknowledges missed payments, the account was rectified, and all premiums have been paid in full by the mayor.