Act 13 needs monitoring for fairness

When the Pennsylvania General Assembly passes a law, it ought to ensure that it’s being administered properly — and, if not, find a way quickly to fix what’s wrong.

Apparently, none of that was done regarding a fouryear-old gas drilling impact fee law under which at least $20 million was spent on “questionable costs” contrary to the measure’s criteria.

The fact that it happened isn’t any less of a disgrace because the funds emanated from industry, not the taxpayers.

Even more troubling is the fact that the $20 million figure was derived from a state audit of only 10 of the 37 counties and 20 of the 1,487 municipalities that received money from drilling impact fees under Act 13 of 2012.

How much higher might that amount be if all 37 counties and all 1,487 municipalities had been audited?

The General Assembly erred in not keeping in touch with the funds-distribution process and how recipients were spending the money; it also made a huge mistake from the get-go by putting the state Public Utility Commission in charge of oversight of the funds coming from the drillers.

The PUC is arguing what lawmakers should have known four years ago — that the agency’s authority doesn’t extend to monitoring spending and verification of budgets submitted by counties and municipalities.

The audit acknowledged the accuracy of the PUC’s position.

In the audit, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale recommended that another state agency, such as the Department of Community and Economic Development or the Commonwealth Financing Authority, be given the task of distributing the money and guiding local governments in their spending of it.

DePasquale was quoted by the online news and information service Capitolwire as saying, “Right now, we essentially have 37 counties and 1,487 municipalities independently interpreting the flawed language of Act 13.”

Under the law, local governments are to spend the money on initiatives that either are related to natural gas well drilling operations, such as repairing damage caused by trucks to roads and bridges, or that fit into one of 13 other guidelines.

A partial list includes repairing water, storm water and sewer systems; environmental programs; safe and affordable housing; local or regional planning; and tax reductions.

However, according to the audit, some municipalities doled out the money for landscaping equipment, legal fees, charitable contributions, and even parties and community events.

Perhaps many of the municipalities and counties didn’t bother to investigate all of the requirements tied to the funds; there was no excuse for that.

But there should have been a state-imposed mechanism to monitor the spending early-on in the money distributions, not allow the misspending to remain ongoing for four years.

Puzzling is why Act 13 contains no consequences or penalties for those who failed to spend the money properly.

The state agencies that received money from the impact fees weren’t included in the audit, but the public deserves a report of their performance too.

The counties and municipalities that were examined by the audit received $85.6 million of the $428 million distributed to local governmental entities during the time period audited.

The General Assembly has plenty of important unfinished business on its plate next year, but the size of the drilling impact fee money problem must make resolving it a priority as well.