Proposed Luzerne County lease criticized by former council member

Linda McClosky Houck is urging Luzerne County Council to reject a revised lease proposed since she left council earlier this month.

The lease is associated with the county’s settlement of Richard and Kimberly Hazzouri’s 2018 litigation, which argued West Pittston did not sufficiently advertise a flood buyout program funded by disaster recovery assistance channeled through the county after record 2011 Susquehanna River flooding, the agenda said.

County council had voted in September to pay $585,000 toward the $650,000 purchase of the Hazzouris’ residential property on Susquehanna Avenue in West Pittston to close out the litigation.

However, council unanimously voted in December to deny a lease allowing the Hazzouris to remain in the property for up to two years for $200 per month while they secure a new residence.

The new proposed agreement on Tuesday’s council agenda would allow the Hazzouris to lease the property for one year at $1,700 per month and provide an additional four-month lease option at $2,000 per month, the agenda said.

Council was “NEVER informed of any discussion of a lease of the property back to them for any period of time” before it had voted in September to purchase the property, said McClosky Houck, who did not seek re-election because she had served all three consecutive council terms permitted by the county’s home rule charter.

McClosky Houck presented her arguments in an email to council, requesting it be read into the meeting record as public comment before Tuesday’s vote.

“Council’s understanding prior to approving the purchase was that the county would purchase the property and then sell it in order to get the property onto the tax rolls,” she wrote.

The county has been attempting to reduce its property ownership throughout the decade under home rule, largely due to the loss of real estate tax revenue for all three taxing bodies, McClosky Houck wrote.

”The proposal to purchase this property and then act as landlord is directly opposed to the goals of county government for the past many years,” she wrote.

Although the current lease proposal for a term of between a year and 16 months is an improvement over the original two years, it is “still an exceptionally long time to continue ownership and liability for the property,” she wrote.

”In any real estate transfer, the family would certainly need some time to vacate the premises, but in no one’s reality should it take a year or more to do so!” she wrote.

McClosky Houck advised council to obtain clarification on what maintenance the county would have to provide under the lease and asserted the revised proposed lease payment is “still ridiculously low.”

She maintained the property is valued “somewhere near $500,000,” which would equate to a monthly rent around $5,000 using a 1%-of-value approach common in real estate rentals, her email said.

“The proposed rental will not even come CLOSE to covering the lost property tax revenue as well as covering the insurance liabilities for a year or more. Flood insurance alone is probably in five figures,” McClosky Houck said.

If council members decide they must approve a lease, she suggested they amend it to a reduced two months at a monthly rent of $5,000. During that lease period, the county should put the property on the market with a fixed closing date, she said.

“It is enough that the county is taking the property off their hands; we should not be forced to take a further loss on the property while they take their time leaving it,” she wrote.

Attorneys for the Hazzouris could not immediately be reached for comment Monday.