Author Archives: admin

About admin

Born and raised in Lower Macungie Township in the village of East Texas. B.A. in Political Science from Slippery Rock University. Co-owner of Bar None Weddings & Entertainment. I love and care about my hometown and frequently blog about local issues that I think are important.

BOC Agenda preview Aug. 18th 2016

Posted on by

HERE IS A LINK TO THE AGENDA WITH DETAIL
All township BOC meetings are available on video online
You can also always watch all our board meetings live on Channel 66 RCN cable.

Here is your agenda preview for the Thursday Aug 4th township meeting. The BOC meetings are the formal business meetings of the elected Board of Commissioners.

Announcements and Presentations:

Fields and Facilities study. LMYA

Lower Macungie Library Expansion. The library is asking the township to commit to co-sponsoring an application to the Commonwealth for a Keystone Grant which would provide 500,000 for towards a library expansion. This would be a matching grant. At this point I have no problem with applying for this with no strings attached. However, I have a number of fundamental questions. For example, what if anything would be the libraries monetary contribution to the expansion project. And secondary I want to see the need justified for the amount of additional square footage being asked for. Which is now 6,500 SF. I do think the expansion is needed. But this represents an increase of 56%.

Holding this capital expenditure request to the same standards established for the turf field I want to see:
1.) Financial Commitment from private entity. In this case Library fundraising.
2.) Demonstrated support from the community. (largely in terms of above)
3.) Demonstrated need.

*The board last night authorized moving forward the application for the grant.

Hearings and Approvals.
Trexler Business Center *This afternoon the item was pulled from tonight’s agenda by the developer. Postponed until 9/1/16.

Not sure what that means at this point. This is the Movie Tavern project. The issue is the developer has asked for a waiver of traffic impact fees. Here was the most recent article on the issue.

I believe the township has two goals here.

1. To be fair with the land developer which I believe we have been since day one. This included crediting the developer with money invested in offsite improvements associated with the projects. This is one reason why the amount publicized in the papers has gone down. We have this obligation to land developers.

2. To utilize every tool at our disposal to make sure improvements associated with new developments mitigate new traffic impact generated. The transportation impact fee is one of the biggest tools we have. We have this obligation to residents. 

Although not the ideal form for our Boulevard, I do think the anchor (The Movie Tavern) makes this a good project. The township is not against this project. We just need to make sure the rules are followed.

Communication
Spring Creek Dog Park Petition
A petition was submitted to the township by residents of Spring Ridge Apartments and adjacent neighborhoods. For a number of the months the township publicly debated two locations for the townships first dogpark. Feedback I received mostly indicated that many preferred Spring Creek as a more centralized location. One of the main benefits was immediate walkable proximity to 1000’s of homes since one spine of the proposed greenway trail will pass very closely to the project. (We do need to make sure we develop a safe crossing point)

While the petition comes late in the game, the residents who submitted make valid points. One thing I appreciate having rec’d a number of petitions over the last 2 years is this one includes a number of very good proactive suggestions. While they prefer the park not be built in this location, they do offer ways to improve it. I appreciate that.

One of the drivers of this project has been a resident dog park advocacy group. The leadership of this group has worked very hard to address concerns. They’ve taken ownership of the project which from day one I felt was important.

One item folks should understand up front is this will be controlled access. With the use of a fob system for access, we can limit the park to only approved users who have provided proof of vaccination, licensing, etc.  The application will be available at the rec center. If there would be an incident, the fob system would allow us to narrow the potential culprits down to only those using the park at the point in time when the incident occurred.

Aside from the rules and regulations aspect, the committee is also working on an education guide that will be provided to all dog owners describing basics of pet etiquette, safety, prevention techniques in the event of aggressive behavior, etc.

Update – The board saw a presentation by Roger Williams the chairperson of the dog park resident group. He addressed concerns raised by the petition. 

Act 4 re-authorization

Act 4 provides a process for freezing the millage on preserved farmland.  It’s an incentive for landowners to preserve. The township, school district and Lehigh County has had this in place for the last 10 years. .

Act 4 amended Pennsylvania’s Open Space Lands Act (Act 442 of 1967) to allow counties, school districts and municipalities to reward landowners who have chosen to permanently preserve their land with conservation easements by freezing their property tax millage rates. A conservation easement is a legal tool that is used to protect privately owned properties from future development.

Seeing the magnitude of the school costs resulting from new residential development on greenfields, the Southern Lehigh, East Penn, and Northern Lehigh school boards have all concluded that policies favoring land preservation will produce a long-term benefit for their taxpayers. School districts’ financial projections showed that a millage freeze for preserved properties will have a relatively small fiscal impact for a likely long-term financial benefit.

I support re-authorizing Act 4 keeping this important preservation incentive active. 

Update – The board last night tabled this to see where the school district is on re-authorization. I would have preferred just getting our reauthorization complete last night, but there is no harm since we do have to do this until next May.

Planning & Zoning

TRUCK RESTRICTIONS proposed for Spring Creek Rd., Trexlertown Rd.
Last Wednesday the Planning and Zoning Committee which I chair recommended truck restrictions on Trexlertown Rd. and Spring Creek Rd. East of Rt. 100. See map below for details.

This is consistent with restrictions indicated on Upper Macungie’s new truck routing master plan. It’s important we work together on shared corridors. This will be considered by the full board.

*Update full board passed unanimous to request Penndot to conduct a study. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie’s office has been contacted and will be supporting.

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 8.14.21 AM

 

Meet your state police Community Service officers.

Posted on by

Interested in bringing the State Police Community Service Officers to your neighborhood? Does your neighborhood have an active crime watch group? Or are you interested in establishing a group? 

Lower Macungie gets our police coverage from the Pennsylvania State Police. State Police Community Services Officers (CSO) are responsible for creating and maintaining relationships with neighborhoods to foster mutual respect and understanding within a station area. These forums are meant to reinforce an understanding that to continue to have a safe community we must work together to be smart and aware in our everyday lives.

The secondary benefit of these meetings is to connect or reconnect the State Police with established or new local Crime watch groups.

We have a number of active Crime Watch groups in our neighborhoods but many don’t. For those who want to establish a new group we have resources available to help residents with forming an organization or re-establishing one.

Regardless of what arrangement a community has for police coverage, officers tell residents one thing consistently. That is a little organization in the form of proactive, aware and engaged residents is the best defense against crimes of opportunity in your neighborhood. PSP CSO’s can help Lower Mac residents with this. For example if a new crime watch group forms they offer to conduct a personal safety presentation for your inaugural meeting.

If you are interested in either bringing the Troopers to your neighborhood, reconnecting the troopers to an existing crime watch group or establishing a new group please contact me at Ronbeitler@gmail.com and I can assist with facilitating. This can mean help getting the word out, working with the township for meeting space and connecting the group to township officials who interface with the PSP on a daily basis. 

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 3.05.13 PM

 

Lower Mac BOC Agenda Preview Aug 4th

Posted on by

HERE IS A LINK TO THE AGENDA WITH DETAIL
All township BOC meetings are available on video online
You can also always watch all our board meetings live on Channel 66 RCN cable.

I apologize for missing the last few meetings. Life has been busy + busiest time of year for work and also a number of time consuming township issues of which I’ll do my best to keep folks updated. Here is your agenda preview for the Thursday Aug 4th township meeting.

Announcements & Presentations:

We will hear a presentation from Kirk Summa on the 2015 Audit. The Single Audit Act of 1984 established requirements for audits of States, local governments, and Indian tribal governments that administer Federal financial assistance programs. (While local gov’t reliance on federal assistance is not necessarily a good thing these audits are). The yearly audit consists of the following exercises:

1. An examination of the general-purpose financial statements and teh auditor opinion
2. A review of compliance based on an examination of the general-purpose financial statements in accordance with the standards issued by the United States General Accounting Office
3. A study and evaluation of internal controls (accounting and administrative)

Library board update. These are the library board members and description of duties. Thank you board members for your volunteerism!

Presentation on the future of the Lehigh County Regional Wastewater System. This is a very important presentation and update. In 2009, EPA issued an Administrative Order to all the municipalities served by the regional sewer systems (that includes us). The order requires all municipalities to make major improvements to sewer systems. Specifically, to eliminate overflows.

Here are some links to get you up to speed if you are not. 
My blog on Infiltration and Inflow 101 – overview of the overflow issue/problem.
Why is this important now? The federal mandate.
What the township has already had to spend in an effort to reach compliance. This is a massively expensive problem. And will continue to be for the foreseeable future. So far we have done this without significant rate increases. From 2009 to now the quarter rate has only increased about 10 dollars.  We struggle with the question on whether we will be able to continue with that. This will certainly be a topic of conversation Thursday.
2009: $650.000
2010: $1,000,000
2011: $300,000
2012:  $700,000
2013: $400,000
2014: $250,000
2015: $ 250,000
2016 projected $250,000

Hearings and approvals.
Conditional Use Hearing – Salvador Galindo Veterinary Hospital
This is a fairly minor land development on Hamilton Boulevard. It’s an existing building that will be converted into a veterinary hospital. A good reuse project. Example of what we need more of as opposed to strip and box retail. 

Lot Line Adjustments and Land Development Plan Approval for Trexler Business Center
We will be talking about this at committee today at 4:30. This meeting as always is open to the public. It is expected the applicant will be asking for a waiver of the traffic impact fee. I will post an update on this discussion on my FB page tonight. Aside from that outstanding (but major) issue, this is an ok project but with an outstanding anchor. That is in terms of fit and impact. Unfortunately, it is another project that by and large was grandfathered many years ago. For what it is I think the developer worked with us to improve it on many aspects. But it still is yet another large big box, strip and pad retail/commercial project.

Pre-Construction Agreement for Spring Creek Properties Lots 7 & 8 (Liberty at Spring Creek) This also will be talked about today at Committee. Public encouraged to attend. Will update on my facebook page tonight.

Communications
Chris Greb from the Macungie Ambulance corp is requesting the township consider a portion of the Kratzer farm for a new ambulance station. See letter below. I support exploring this as part of the Kratzer Farm master plan study. Where is the Kratzer Farm? The additional station was needed 6 years ago because of growth. The corp currently leases a small area at the Wescosville Fire Station. Problem is this arrangement was temporary with an understanding the LMFD would need this space at some point.

Harrisburg scrambles for revenue.

Posted on by

PA could have a 1.3 billion increase in spending to fund a $31.5 billion election-year budget. That’s the latest number. Now they wrangle over how to raise revenue. That’s the topic of debate right now in Harrisburg.

It seems like the rumored list of possibilities is becoming clearer. New taxes could include:

  • Gambling expansion – I call this one a gimmick. It could include Licensing fees on internet based gaming and also expanding gaming machines in bars and taverns. Personally I’ve always had mixed feelings on any kind of gambling expansion. I think one thing most can agree on is it’s never delivered the amount of relief promised. In the case of internet gambling we can look to New Jersey where revenues have underwhelmed and some say led to further poaching of dollars from traditional casinos. Peter meet Paul.
  • Energy taxes – A broad based consumer tax. This is a preference of the Gov. It would mean extending existing gross receipts tax to natural gas customers. This could amount to around $55 a year for the average residential customer.
  • Taxes on banks – Institutional tax. A tax on savings. Don’t quite understand this. Not much information out there about this.
  • Uber and ride-sharing taxes – Wetting governments beak on a new and very successful disruptive tech. Uber is now pretty much legal everywhere in PA except Philly. Although that may have recently changed.
  • Digital download tax – I look at this as closing a loophole. Potentially on purchases ranging from music to movies. It’s a consumer tax.
  • I keep reading another piece is “Tax amnesty legislation” – I’m not sure what this means, but tax amnesty is generally related to forgiveness on delinquent bills. I can’t find information on what this entails. Will we offer more flexibility in hopes of getting more late or delinquent accounts paid up? Maybe this is a good reform? I need to learn more.
  • Accounting magic – Also read last couple days the use of an accounting trick essentially to borrow from the workers compensation fund. To be fair, this sort of accounting trick is used quite frequently in most levels of government.

I hope these capsules and links help folks navigate what’s proposed. As is usually the case most strategies are paired with optimistic (unrealistic) revenue projections. And we have unresolved concerns of how this relates to the states constitutional mandate for a balanced budget.

What we know is, the 1.X billion more in spending is driving the need to raise revenue. The conversation now is what combination of taxes make the most sense to do that.

We can argue what mechanisms are more or less “fair”. We should instead be debating how we re-prioritize, enact structural reform and reduce overall spending. Then the convo would not be about which taxes are “better” or somehow less burdensome and talk about what taxes we actually roll back first. Spending is going in the wrong direction and leaders are again punting on reform.

I’m a realist. I never had a burn it down type attitude. I understand the state funds many critical or otherwise important programs. Taxes on some level are reality. Also compromise is a reality of our Democratic system. But we’re failing again to address a number of areas where inherent waste exists where allegedly we have agreement across the aisle. I believe the money needed to address our priorities exists today. We have more than enough. We just need to 1.) In some cases shift the burden. For example school funding away from homeowners. #SB76 and  2.) Understand that more overall revenue because of increased overall spending is almost never the answer to anything. #nonewtaxes

Movie tavern thoughts part 2

Posted on by

Movie Tavern has generated a lot of positive discussion over the last couple days. But before we get to that let’s back up a second.

I was elected on a smart growth platform. From the beginning I was clear that meant better growth management. Not stopping growth. You can’t stop growth. And to promise that would have been insincere. I was clear Lower Mac’s strategy needed to be smart growth + land preservation. And that’s exactly what we’ve been implementing.

Here are just a few examples:

Preservation of 55 acres on Mountain Rd.
Lower Macungie commits funds to preserve 55-acre Heim farm
Adoption of official map – a critical preservation tool
With official map Lower Macungie could take more proactive stance on land use issues
Utilization of County municipal match to leverage twp. funds for preservation dollars
Turning $200,000 into $800,000 for farmland preservation Two Lehigh County townships in pilot program to save farms
Update of our comprehensive plans
www.planswl.org 

I also believe we need to hold development in appropriate locations to higher standards. Not be afraid to vote against projects that would have negative impact. I’ve done this having voted against and pushed back on bad projects.  I’ve said here on this blog many times Lower Mac is open for business in appropriate growth areas but developers should be prepared to bring your ‘A’ game. In other areas where dumb growth strains our infrastructure and resources we must be prepared to put our skin in and game enter the market and get farmland and open space preserved. And we have done that. And will continue to do that.

So that brings us to the Movie Tavern and if the township should support a variance for increased building height to accommodate a 15 ft higher than the roofline marquee that some have categorized as a tower. 

The township currently regulates building height to 50ft. This is by my best guess a fairly old regulation. The question becomes, is this a standard we should dig our heels in on and risk losing what is otherwise a pretty good fit for our boulevard? Or should we work with the tavern like we’ve done for 6+ months now.
First, it’s important to understand what the purpose of the 50ft regulation is. Regulations must have a purpose. I spent some time trying to figure that out last two days. Since the ordinance was written before our current zoning officer and planner were here I can make an educated guess it has something to do with fire safety. When the ordinance was written the LMTFD may not have had the capability to fight fires in buildings over 50ft. Fact is today we can. I confirmed that yesterday with the LMTFD Chief. And of course this was reviewed as part of the land development process months ago as all developments are. Brent Mcnabb our fire inspector sits on our planning commission. Every single land development is reviewed by Brent.

Bottom line is we absolutely should hold developers to higher standards. And we have been last 2 years. To that end the project has seen numerous revisions over 6 months. Largely because the township requested certain improvements. In fact Movie Tavern officials have said to me “Lower Mac is the hardest review process we’ve ever had to go through”. But they also agree and have said that the strenuous review will result in a much better overall project. That’s the sort of buy in we seek.

Some of our requests included a complete redesign of the back of the building to eliminate glare, an additional large plaza area if front of the tavern and also allowing the township to hand pick the facade and building prototype that best represented the townships design standards. Movie Tavern volunteered to do all of this. And the review isn’t yet finished. The height issue relates directly to the Movie Tavern component. But the rest of the project is subject to a conditional use hearing that is yet to be held. Even today I have issues with other aspects of the property and of course will attempt to address them.

What I don’t want to do is regulate good projects to death. That’s not my purpose. As a whole this is a decent project. Not great. But within the scope of the overall project a Movie Theater is one of the best aspects. This is mostly based on measurable impact.

Fact is, the tavern IS the best use for this location. Understand, this commercial center is allowed under zoning. Since it’s grandfathered that cannot be changed. Something is going to be built at this location as an anchor for this commercial center. If it’s not a Movie Tavern it would likely be some else. Probably box retail. And box retail would almost certainly have more impact both on the community at large and also neighbors. Purely traffic conversation. The theater is an anchor that will generate mostly evening and weekend trips. Anything else would likely be AM/PM peak day trips. That is exactly what we want to avoid.

I will also say having attended the hearing it was clearly demonstrated with site line drawings that the tower would not impact neighbors. I think this could have been addressed even further with enhanced buffer plantings along the back of the building.

So the issue is, yes I believe strongly (and have demonstrated many times) the township needs to have a commitment to high design standards. On this project we’ve done that. But at the same time those standards need to have an actual purpose. It’s not just obstructionism or throwing up monkeywrenches. With the Movie Tavern we have an excellent use on a decent project in an area identified by long term comprehensive plans (regional and local) for targeted growth.

Residents came with very valid concerns (we need more of this) and I think those concerns were addressed. There will be more opportunities to address concerns during conditional use.

Because I’ve fought bad projects in the past I think some expect me to fight every development project. There are some who just want the township to cease all development. Personally I’m sympathetic.  I wish we could. Would be nice to just put a moratorium on development. But unfortunately, that’s impossible based on state laws. So I’m going to continue to do what I’ve done last 2.5 years. Aggressively advocate for farmland and open space preservation. Continue to hold developers to very high and meaningful standards. And for projects that represent good fits in identified growth areas? Get the heck out the way and help foster higher value growth in the right places. 

I’m sorry that some disagree with me on this. But I made a promise when I ran to always let residents know exactly where I stand on issues. And this is another attempt at letting folks know where my head is at. Disagree? Let’s talk. Contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com

Movie Tavern thoughts

Posted on by

Last night the zoning hearing board rejected a dimensional variance that would have added 15 ft onto a tower in front of the proposed movie tavern. Movie tavern officials claimed this is a deal breaker. It remains to be seen if that is the case. It’s important to note that the Zoning Hearing Board is a quasi judicial board entity, seperate from the Board of Commissioners. Though I attended the hearing I did not get a vote.

My thoughts are this. Generally, I think our zoning hearing board gives away major variances to large scale developers much too easily. They did this in the case of Hamilton Crossings. And in the past I’ve spoken out opposing such variances both in person and in the form of letters.

However, this is not one I would have personally dug my heels in on. This is after having visited a similar Movie Tavern in Exton PA. I wrote this post a few months ago and included some photographs and video I took. Also after having seen the site line diagrams presented last night that demonstrated clearly that residents over 500 ft away from the tower in Shepherd Hills would not even see it from their backyards.

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 12.02.49 PM

So at this point I’m nervous that if this kills the theater we will get another anchor that could very well be much more impactful. Remember, this plan is grandfathered originally submitted almost a decade ago. So the allowed uses are vested. Meaning the theater could be replaced with a big box retailer. That would mean more traffic, more truck deliveries and more parking issues. And likely a much less attractive building design. (The movie tavern really did work with us last few months agreeing to build a large plaza in front of the building with enhanced landscaping and buffers.)

The theater is a good use for this site. I’m not sure what could replace it would be.  I certainly do not want to see anymore strip malls, big box retailers or warehouses. That leaves entertainment uses which is something our recent PCTI study said we are deficient in here in Lower Mac. Entertainment uses typically have much lower impacts. So a win/win for the township.

Now we wait and see. Was this a bluff? Will the tavern walk away? If so, then we need to be concerned with what replaces it.

Bottom line for me is yes, I think our zoners often give away variances much to easily on large projects. And I’m happy to see them actually challenge a request. But this is not one I would have taken a gamble on. The risk/reward didn’t make sense in this case. The reason is because the Movie Tavern is an excellent low impact fit. Now, if we lose it we could end up with something much worse. And will not have any power to stop it.  We often have to play hands we are dealt and put on strategic hats. This was the case here. The Movie Tavern already addressed a number of township concerns including completely changing the color of the back of the building as to reduce glare for neighbors. They went above and beyond. Another user might not be willing to voluntarily do all the things Movie Tavern agreed to do. So at this time the tower wasn’t a fight I would have picked over 15 additional feet. Residents of Shepherd Hills will still end up having to look at the back of a very large building. But the next user might not be so community conscientious as the Movie Tavern was.

Sen. Casey addresses Wal-mart impacts on local communities

Posted on by

Sen. Casey – Wal Marts and other box stores strain local resources. 

When you develop a property you are not entitled to unlimited or unreasonable usage (waste) of public municipal resources paid for by tax dollars.

Our Lower Mac Wal-Mart, has for years been a considerable strain on police resources. This is well documented locally. (2013 Morning Call) Wal-Mart seems to rely on police to provide basic security at considerable cost to taxpayers. While every resident and business is entitled to call police for help or to report a crime it’s obvious Wal-Mart exploits this. 

Not only do we face financial impact, but safety as well. When police are spending excessive time at one business they are taken away from other duties.

Similar issue, in 2013 we instituted a nuisance ordinance for excessive fire alarms. We did this after our Fire Dept. reported ] 30% of emergency calls from commercial users were false alarms. Same principle. While every business is entitled to fire protection, there came a point where excessive calls constituted a public nuisance. After enacting the ordinance along with corresponding fines we immediately saw a drop in false alarms. I believe if Wal-Mart had to pay for excessive call volume for totally preventable retail crimes we would see the retail giant suddenly become much more proactive with prevention.

Here is what Sen. Casey had to say in a letter penned to Wal-Mart President Doug Mcmillon. 

“I write to request that Wal-Mart conduct a review of its internal security protocol to ensure adequate security staffing and procedures at stores in Pennsylvania and around the country,” Casey wrote. “Of course, police protect and serve every member of our communities, but the significant volume of calls from Wal-Mart stores raises serious questions about whether the company’s current security infrastructure effectively deters crime without overburdening local police departments, many of which already operate on stretched budgets.”


According to the article, a Wal-Mart representative said the retailer plans to meet with Lehigh Valley elected officials and police in coming weeks to discuss security measures. I have asked to be kept informed and to be a part of this meeting if possible. I made a phone call to Sen. Casey’s office this AM. 

 

 

 

What are those new cameras on Hamilton Boulevard traffic signals?

Posted on by

So, what are those new cameras on Hamilton Boulevard traffic signals?

The cameras being installed along a sequence of signals on the Boulevard are part of the hardware package for the townships new traffic adaptive “smart” system. It’s not yet activated but will be later this summer.

They will be used by the automated adaptive system to “sync” green light and turning lane phases corridor wide. Each signal will communicate in real time via a wi-fi system to coordinate traffic flow.

Here is a very nice overview of a similar system.

Farmland preservation through TDR

Posted on by

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a voluntary, incentive based program enabled by the MPC that allows landowners to sell development rights from their land to a developer or other interested party who then can use these rights to increase the density at another more appropriate location.

Lower Mac is working through creation of a TDR program as a mechanism for preservation coupled with smarter growth. In our case we are dealing with one owner of two tracts. This strategy makes sense for number of reasons. First some background. In 2012 a prior board created a new zoning ordinance introducing residential uses into commercial zones. This mixing of uses could be considered smart growth. However, in my opinion the ordinance was weak in that regard. The zoning change also granted additional density for nothing. The decision increased the net density of the township. In contrast, with a TDR like the one proposed today we can accomplish desired mixed use development (of a higher quality) but without increasing the net density of the township and also preserving farmland at the same time.

To put it another way, under a zoning code a community has a net maximum amount of units that can built out. In 2012 the BOC at the time made a decision to increase that number. A poor decision in my opinion.

With the proposed TDR we have on the table today, while there would be increased density at one location as part of the TDR, (a location identified as more appropriate based on comprehensive planning) overall we will decrease the townships net density. In fact, our goal is to reduce significantly the total number of residential units that could otherwise be built over two tracts. Therefore, reducing the net density of the township. We are trying to erase more residential density in one location than we are replacing in another. The balance could be made up with farmland easements or neighborhood commercial uses that do not generate or drive traffic.

Goals are simple: Reduce the overall net density of the township through land preservation. Guide walkable mixed use growth to more appropriate locations closer to existing infrastructure. 

Coverage: Lower Macungie pursues farmland preservation, mixed-use village.

Comparison of local tax rates

Posted on by

What are municipal taxes like in Lower Mac compared to other areas?

With the recently enacted homestead reduction residential properties assessed under 150,000 in Lower Mac have the lowest municipal property tax bills out of all East Penn communities + Upper Mac. Residents with homes assessed at 111,300 or less are the only remaining homeowners in the entire county who have a local property tax bill of ZERO. (about 1000 households)

Across the board, Lower Mac is tied for the 5th lowest municipal millage rate in all of Lehigh County out of 25 municipalities. Lower Mac’s millage is 50% lower than average for all townships.  FYI neighboring Macungie Borough has the lowest municipal taxes out of not just the East Penn Boroughs but all 8 Lehigh County Boroughs.

The chart below shows municipal millage rates and the tax bills in dollars for various assessments in East Penn municipalities:

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 10.40.29 AM

 

To compare what you pay in municipal taxes vs. what you pay in school property taxes see chart below. 

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 10.54.37 AM

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 10.49.36 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a home appraised at around 220,000 your Lower Macungie bill represents about 1% of your total property taxes. (See what that looks like below) With the homestead reduction over the last two years 50% of homeowners got a tax break 2 years in a row. 90% got a tax break in at least 1 of the last 2 years.

In Lower Mac we are continuing to fulfill our goal of 1st class services, facilities, parks, amenities and a very aggressive farmland and open space preservation program while keeping municipal taxes very low. Our low millage rate is unparalleled for a township our size with the amount of services and facilities we provide and public works we maintain.

 

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 11.44.14 AM

Lower Mac taxes visually. The green slice (if you can find it) is your Lower Mac tax bill. Yellow is Lehigh County. Red is school district.