Voters in three Luzerne County townships face decision on expanding their elected governing body

Voters in three Luzerne County townships — Dallas, Jenkins, and Sugarloaf — will decide next month if they want to expand their municipality’s elected governing body.

Referendums on the Nov. 3 general election ballot ask voters in those municipalities to accept or reject increasing the number of elected supervisors from three to five.

Citizens initiated the referendums in Dallas and Sugarloaf townships by presenting petitions signed by voters.

Fern Leard submitted approximately 400 signatures supporting the question in Dallas Township, while Sugarloaf Township resident Erika Cook filed a petition signed by 161 voters seeking the referendum there, the filings show. Petitions must be signed by at least 5% of the registered voters of the township, according to the state’s referendum handbook.

In contrast, a majority of the Jenkins Township Board of Supervisors requested the referendum in that municipality.

Jenkins Township Supervisors Stanley Rovinski and Joseph Sperrazza supported the referendum at a special meeting in July.

Rovinski and Sperraza said last week several citizens asked them to place the referendum on the ballot, and they agreed because they want to leave it up to the voters to decide.

The need for additional help handling an increased workload was among the reasons cited by citizens.

Supervisor Robert Linskey cast the lone no vote, pointing to a projected added cost of $100,000 to add two supervisors he does not believe are needed, prior reporting said. Linskey said he also does not believe the workload is unmanageable for three.

Rovinski said last week he does not dispute Linsky’s estimate as a potential maximum added cost, but it would depend on those elected.

The township supervisors are permitted to receive health coverage, but none of the three seated opt to accept it, he said. Should the referendum pass, the newly elected supervisors would have the option for health coverage.

The supervisors receive $76 every two weeks, or $1,976 annually, Rovinski said. Additional compensation is provided for those serving as roadmaster, treasurer, and assistant treasurer, he said.

“Like anything, there are good points and bad points,” Rovinski said of the proposed addition of two supervisors. “Since we have so many people interested, my attitude is let the people decide.”

In Sugarloaf Township, Cook said she sought the referendum because she believes more than three supervisors should be involved in major decisions impacting the municipality. Cook said she came to this realization as residents have been dealing with concerns about proposed large-scale development projects and a PPL Electric Utilities transmission line through the municipality.

“Considering the gravity of what these people are responsible for, we just want to help,” Cook said in reference to the Board of Supervisors. “It’s a lot for three people, and I don’t think it’s a terrible idea to have extra sets of eyes.”

While the added cost is a consideration, Cook said she believes it is minimal and could be offset in the long run if the additional input from two more people results in decisions that save the municipality money.

“We have a lot of very educated people within our township who have a lot they can bring to the table,” Cook said, adding issues with development and utilities have “created a resurgence of people involved in their community.”

Sugarloaf Township supervisors receive $156.26 per month, or $1,875 per year, with no health benefits, said Township Manager Liz Tolan.

Township supervisors could opt to increase the compensation and add benefits at any time, although the maximum annual compensation is capped at $3,145, Tolan said.

In addition, there is additional compensation for the supervisors serving as roadmaster and secretary/treasurer, she said.

The effort to seek two additional supervisors in Dallas Township was prompted by a belief of some that the municipality is not doing enough to be transparent and consider public input, Leard said.

“We decided the only recourse would be to add more voices and perspectives,” she said.

Leard also argued more than three elected officials should be involved in decisions about municipal contracts and other important business.

“Many are glad we are doing this and did not know we could. We want extra eyes on the room,” Leard said.

Township Supervisor Chairwoman Liz Martin said she believes the effort is “politically motivated.”

“Our Board of Supervisors has been a three-person board for over 200 years. For our board, none of us feel it’s necessary to add two more people,” Martin said.

Supervisors are entitled to annual stipends of up to $2,500 a year, and one of the three seated members foregoes that compensation, she said.

The township also offers full health insurance to the elected supervisors, Martin said. Although the three members don’t accept township-funded coverage because they signed up for Medicare, those elected to new seats could choose to receive it, Martin said.

If two supervisors are added and receive health insurance, it would cost the township an additional half a million dollars over the six-year term of the new members with those costs and other expenses added in, Martin said.

“It would be a tax burden definitely,” Martin said, adding that no citizens sought township input on the proposed referendum.

If the referendum passes in any of the three municipalities, the additional seats would be on the ballot in 2027, with the chosen candidates seated in 2028, officials said.

Local journalism matters, and your support makes it possible. You can help sustain this work by making a donation or choosing one of our subscription options. Subscribers enjoy valuable benefits, including full access to our e-edition, a reduced ad experience on timesleader.com, and more.

Your support helps ensure independent, high-quality local news remains available today and for future generations. Thank you for standing with local journalism.

Click for subscription offers.