As problems with the Greenville Municipal Authority keep swimming to the surface, the possibility of selling the water works has once again entered into public discussion.

"We would hope the board would look more seriously at the possibility," said Borough Council President Bryan Langietti.

The first time the idea of selling the plant came up was when Greenville was faced with applying for distressed community assistance from the state, Langietti said.

Selling the water plant was one of the ideas bandied about for bailing the borough out of its more than $1 million budget deficit, which came to light earlier this year. Some people suggested that if the plant could be sold for a high enough price, the remaining debt on the plant -- about $4 million -- plus the borough's outstanding bills could be paid off with maybe a little to spare.

But there were some problems with that idea.

First, Langietti said, "Council is trying to figure out what we can and cannot do" in terms of selling the plant.

"Council appoints the members of the board," Langietti said, "but we have no way of controlling the authority." Council has a nonvoting member on the board, David P. Henderson, who "attends the meetings and tells us what is going on," Langietti said. "We really have no input on what the authority does."

"We are asking questions like, 'Can we do anything?' and 'Who is responsible?' "

Peter Acker, a Hermitage lawyer, was hired by the authority board to explore the possibility of a sale of the water plant. Acker has experience in such matters. He was the free counsel for Mercer Water Improvement Now, a special interest committee that helped force the sale of Mercer Water Co. in 1996 to what is now Consumers Pennsylvania Water Co. Shenango Valley Division.

Acker said the authority is looking at several options. It could sell its assets to a regional authority, expand into a regional authority of its own, or sell its assets to a privately traded utility.

Two companies have expressed interest in buying the authority, Acker said, one of which is Consumers Water.

Langietti said money from a sale would go first to pay off any debt the authority owes, which board Chairman Jack Dershimer pegged at $4 million. The remainder would go to the borough.

Some ballpark figures place the authority's value in excess of $10 million, Acker said, "and that's not just the sticks and bricks." That includes the revenue that can be generated from the water system and any physical assets.

"There are some remaining concerns of where the proceeds from a sale would go," Acker said. "There is an idea of waiting until the borough gets its financial situation straightened out."

Even if council decides selling the authority would benefit the borough financially, Langietti said, all council can do is recommend the sale.

Legally, Acker acknowledged, the authority doesn't need to have the approval of council for its actions.

"It would be folly to try to do something (concerning a sale) without consulting borough council. It would just be folly ... without input from council, residents and consumers. Legally, do they need approval? No. But practically ..." Acker said.

The legal questions surrounding the relationship of a borough and an independent municipal authority are not unique to Mercer County. Acker said there were lawsuits in Crawford County over just those questions. A lawsuit over such a question would not be healthy for the authority or the borough, Acker said.

You can e-mail Herald Staff Writer Amanda Smith-Teutsch at: