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.

The Homestead program is about the long term

Posted on by

Last night after a year of consideration we passed the homestead exclusion ordinance. Here is an overview. I proposed this program in January. After having to do some leg work to get it considered (initially told we couldn’t do it) the board finally adopted the ordinance last night.

One item I wanted to clarify is the program is not a reduction of the millage rate. Some statements made last night could lead people to believe that. It does reduce the tax bills for homeowners it doesn’t for renters, commercial or industrial properties. This is important to understand.

The millage rate in Lower Macungie remains at .33. There was no reduction. What we did was enact a program to lower tax bills of primary residences for those enrolled in the program.

SHORT TERM: With Homestead the reduced bill is based on a reduced assessment. The average Lower Macungie tax bill goes down 19 dollars. This is a good thing. We do our part, the county does it’s part and the school district holds the line. It all does add up. Just like small tax increases over multiple taxing bodies adds up, small overall reductions do also.

I get why some focused on the short term. Framing it as a “tax break“. Politically makes sense for those trying to justify spending 13% of our entire township budget on synthetic fields. But it doesn’t help outline long term benefits. Because focus last night was on short term political narratives the programs long term benefits weren’t explained well. The long term potential is the true value of the homestead exclusion program. To cash in we need to stay focused on that.

LONG TERM: Long term fiscal sustainability means the township must balance the books. Revenue on the positive side. Liabilities on the negative side. Lower Mac continues to build out strip shopping centers and Industrial warehouse properties. These types of land uses create massive liabilities while generating pound for pound very little in revenue/acre. (see example below) The rezoning of 700 acres of farmland (farmland generates net positive revenue – High ROI) to allow warehouses and strip commercial (Very low ROI) will cost the township more in the long run. The beauty of homestead is that if maxed out it allows us to give a 50% reduction on homeowners tax bill.

As the township balances the books as a result of proliferating low ROI land uses homeowners should not have to pay increased taxes because of dumb growth decisions. To do this we need to:

1. SHORT TERM – Part 1: Adopt homestead exclusion. (We did this last night)

2. LONG TERM – Part 2: Adjust the millage rate and max out the homestead reduction (2015)

With homestead exclusion after we max it out a resident who owns a home in Lower Macungie should always pay a 50% discounted tax bill (via 50% reduced assessment). While we still collect 100% of revenue from industrial and commercial uses.

Residents are intelligent in Lower Macungie. I don’t believe in feeding them talking points. Yes, 19 dollars in your pocket is nice but homestead is a long term play. That’s why I proposed it. Again, I get why some hi-jacked the message and crowed about it last night. Made for a tidy narrative as they tried to justify 3.3 Million in synthetic fields. Great political play. But unfortunately since the program wasn’t really explained in detail the bigger picture benefits were glazed over. This is what’s important. The 19 dollar bill reduction was a bonus. A good thing. But my goal is much bigger. Long term resiliency.

Bottom line: After the one time windfalls of growth is gone the township will eventually need to “balance the books”. Homestead makes sure residential properties aren’t shouldering the burden created by Industrial warehouses and Commercial strip malls. 

Distribution warehouses are one of the lowest ROI land uses for a local community.

Warehouses do not generate enough revenue to cover the liabilities they create. This includes increased need for police protection, specialized fire equipment, massive road improvements and general wear and tear, and low ROI per acre of land lost.

Warehouses do not generate enough revenue to cover the liabilities they create. This includes increased need for police protection, specialized fire equipment, massive road improvements and general wear and tear, and low ROI per acre of land lost.

To address the long term in 2016 I will propose a full 50% homestead reduction with .50 to .66 mil property tax rate: (the Millage should be increased in conjunction with maxing out the homestead % but more work needs to be done to determine how much)

  • Under proposed .66 mil property tax if you own a home at the township average of around 250,000 dollars your tax liability is 165. (Remember, that is local LMT tax not school or County)
  • Under a homestead exclusion program that grants a 50% assessment reduction on a primary residence the assessed value (for purposes of tax calculation only) is cut in half to 125,000. Therefore the tax bill is also reduced by half to 82.50. (Current level)
  • Meantime Commercial properties such as a distribution warehouses valued at 24,000,000 pays the full assessed value at .66 mil which would be 15,800. This is double the 2014 bill of 7,900.00.

All this is part of a long term plan to address underlying fiscal sustainability. But we have to stay focused. Another part is farmland preservation. Want to lower taxes? Preserve farmland. #saveitorpaveit. Preserving farmland is the number one quality of life issue in the township. By committing to it among many benefits we avoid having to build more infrastructure, provide more services, and we do our part to keep enrollment in EPSD stable.

Rt. 222 bypass: Road, Street or Stroad?

Posted on by

Originally written in 2014, I revisited this post a decade later as the bypass resurfaces again in LVPC discussions and in the news. The problems have become worse. The road is as inefficient as ever and much more dangerous. 

For roadways to yield the highest return on investment, we must clearly define their intended purpose and design them accordingly. Generally, two options:

bypass

Pictured is the Rt. 222 Kutztown bypass. A well designed ROAD with on/off ramps and low accessibility paired with highway geometry allows for 55 mph speed limit. It safely moves automobiles quickly and efficiently through the corridor.

 

ROAD  

  • High speed by design 
  • Highway geometry
  • Low accessibility
  • A place for automobiles only. This facilitates safely moving them at high speeds.

 

 

East-Blvd-After-Dual-Left-Hard-Turn-Lane-e1357934233263

This is the Hamilton Boulevard vision outlined in a 2013 corridor study. It’s multimodal in nature creating a higher value environment. Traffic travels at safer speeds due to calming measures. This is much closer to a STREET generating higher returns on investment for the community.

 

 

STREET 

      • Safe by design
      • Complex environment
      • High accessibility
      • A place to capture value and encourage commercial development
      • Designed for all modes of transportation. A generally pleasant environment.
      • Facilitates high value development

 

 

So which type is the the bypass and which is the boulevard? I argue side by side STROADS. Similar to how a futon serves poorly as both a couch and a bed, a STROAD moves cars too slowly for efficient travel yet too fast to attract meaningful private investment. This leads to a costly failure that doesn’t excel at anything. As taxpayers why do we spend public money on very expensive things that don’t accomplish any goal particularly well?

*Update: In 2015, I spearheaded a letter-writing campaign supporting Lower Macungie’s LVTS funding request to address the issue and attempt to fix the mess. Unfortunately, that request was ignored and today almost 10 years later the situation is even more dangerous.

 

STROAD

Here is the Macarther Rd. Classic STROAD. An obviously dangerous place for pedestrians. But despite highway geometry, does not move automobiles quickly or efficiently either. Lots of accidents. Dangerous for automobiles. Dangerous for people. Very expensive to build and maintain. Jarring environment. Not a pleasant place.

STROAD 

        • Does not move automobiles quickly or safely
        • Dangerous for pedestrians
        • Expensive to build and maintain
        • Encourages low value development.

 

Side by side stroads is the direction we’re headed today.

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

The 222 bypass today is a dangerous STROAD built with highway geometry but with traffic signals instead of on/off ramps and artificially limited to 45 mph. The “bypass” doesn’t move cars efficiently or quickly. It’s also very dangerous. The whole thing is quite frankly a speed trap since the posted speed doesn’t correspond to the design speed. Therefore: STROAD *Note in 2019 the speed limit was increased to 55mph.

On the the boulevard we have a developing STROAD. As of late township staff worked hard to require higher quality development. Still, most PENNDot road improvements have been of a STROAD nature directly conflicting with stated goals of safety, value and walkability. It fundamentally encourages low value strip or “power center” development. For ex. planned driveways off Hamilton Crossings will be super sized and dangerous. That will not make it a very safe place for people. Therefore businesses will respond rationally and over build parking lots, oversized signs, supersized driveways ect. As all this compounds we may wake up one day with Macarther Rd. west.

To fix this we need to STOP and all get on the same page, deciding once and for all what purpose we want these roads to serve. Try to be both and you will fail at both. 

Keys:
Bypass – Purpose to move cars efficiently and quickly between clusters of destinations

  • Grade separation on the bypass. Get rid of the signals and build ramps.
  • Raise the speed limit to 55 (THIS WAS DONE IN 2019)
  • Prioritize through movements.

Boulevard – Purpose foster a vibrant community center. A multi-modal corridor.

  • Calm traffic using techniques/strategies outlined in Penndots smart transportation manual.
  • Transit corridor
  • Make safe for Pedestrians
  • Fix zoning code to allow high value development (as opposed to only strip malls)
  • Neighborhood Commercial

 

Why do we overlook a golden opportunity?

Posted on by

According to the One Lehigh Valley Local Food Economy Report – The biggest barrier to fostering a more robust local food economy is continued loss of farmland.

images

130+ acre working farm in Lower Macungie. If the township doesn’t get proactive in preservation this will be 300 units someday.

Important to note since often overlooked: Agriculture IS a form of industrial infrastructure. Yet communities continue to pave over this invaluable asset only to replace it with uses that require additional infrastructure and strain local resources to sustain. Farmland is fiscally one of the highest value land uses in terms of liabilities vs. revenue.

  • Since 1930 the LV has lost 80% of it’s farms. Based on average diets Lehigh Valley farmers can only produce about 20% of the Valley’s food demands. With a market shift towards locally grown foods there is clearly money to be made in both local and regional economies.

All it takes are strategic investments in “food infrastructure” needed to support a local food economy. For ex: Aggregators, distributors, food business incubators, grain mills, and more food hubs. Even underserved and undervalued we already today have a local food economy that contributes 17 million annually to the LV economy.

900,000 residents with 145,000 more on the way. We have restaurants today who seek local sourced food. We have a network of municipal farmers markets. Eight Lehigh Valley areas today have limited access to fresh foods. *Super-majorities of residents value preserving farmland. Yet as a matter of mis-guided policy localities encourage the loss of the agriculture infrastructure. We have the will, there is demand, our economies will benefit. The economics make sense. What exactly is the holdup? Let’s acknowledge this as a regional opportunity!

What I can’t help but think is which forward thinking local municipality is going to recognize this and jump on it? A tenet of smart growth is utilizing existing infrastructure. Remaining farmland in our outer ring suburbs is just that. Who will make these connections and reconcile it with a communities desire to protect farmland and the corollary quality of life benefits. Which community will take the ball and run with it? Yes, it’ll take some time and a little more work vs. turning over a greenfield to a developer. And the benefits won’t be as immediate as one time cash infusions of a major real estate transfer. But over time it’s a move to set a community up for the long term. It’s the long play. The smart play.

For a community like Lower Macungie despite the continued loss of much of our land including 700 acres in 2010 the opportunity is still not lost. A local food economy thrives on small farms > 40 acres. These are the operations that grow the food we eat and we still have many parcels that fit that criteria. It’s incorrect to assume that only large contiguous acreage is worth preserving. The alternative is to pave them. If we choose that route we should be prepared to pay the long term price.

Screen Shot 2014-12-10 at 1.20.25 PM* Lower Macungie Parks and Recreation Comprehensive plan: 60% of respondents to public survey component rank acquiring and protection of open space as “extremely important” in a ranking of priorities. (the highest ranking)

 

Lehigh County gets proactive by moving new hires to new tier in 2015

Posted on by

A couple weeks ago I wrote a quick primer post on the role of the County Controller.

I wanted to do a followup. Even though the controllers primary role (when it’s done correctly imo) is that of a non-partisan fiscal watchdog, occasionally the Controller has a hand in policy decisions. As I mentioned in my previous post in Lehigh County oftentimes this occurs in matters relating to county employee retirement policy. This because the Controller serves as voting member and secretary of the retirement board.

images (1)

Recently the board made a decision to change the 1/60th tier retirement plan for current employees.  The tiers are described in Act 96 relating to the County Pension Law of 1971.

Early last year County Retirement Board chose to change the tier for new employees starting next year for those hired after December 31st 2015. The Retirement Board voted unanimously to adopt a second retirement tier of 1/70. The board includes current Controller Glenn Eckhart.

What this change does is reduce the county portion of the a retiree benefit by 14% which in turn will save millions of dollars for county tax payers moving forward. Note: The change will only effect new employees hired after December 31st 2014 and current employees by law will continue to have the benefits of the 1/60 plan.

The difference between 1/60 and 1/70 is basically at 1/60 a person one would have to work 30 years to get half of their final three year average salary a year. 1/70 means they would have to work 35 years. 

Two reasons for the change:

First it takes into account that since the lifetime medical benefit was stopped in 1988 Lehigh County employees now work longer for the County. This is mainly because of medical benefits. Additionally based on the latest mortality table change county employees are living much longer (common problem in many retirement systems) This of course means they work longer. So basically a county employee will end up with somewhere near the current level of benefits but at a significantly reduced cost to the County moving forward.

Again and very important this does not affect current employees. Tiering benefits is an important reform that institutions can enact to make sure we play fair with current employees but to address fundamental fiscal issues moving forward. In the end this change is important since it reduce the County obligations while still  continuing to provide a very fair benefit to our invaluable County retirees who are our backbone. This represented great leadership from Controller Eckhart.

Synthetic fields facts & research – Answers to common questions

Posted on by

Over the next week on this page I will be compiling to the best of my abilities answers to many common questions we have received from the public regarding the Quarry Park turf field proposal. Recently, I voted against earmarking 1.5 Million Dollars in surplus money (total cost of line item 3.3M) to fund a proposal for turf fields as part of the 2015 budget proposal. At this time I am not convinced that the synthetic field aspect of the concept plan is the best way to address township field use issues. As an alternative I have proposed informally that we should instead concentrate on less expensive alternatives to address current field use issues. For example, more lights on existing grass fields and a natural grass field expansion plan.

Volumes of information are available on the internet regarding this topic. However, I am limiting links and information on this page to:
1. Academic research or pieces that directly cite academic research. (Focus on Penn State Materials since this was the program who presented in front of the township)

2. Research through the Township Manager
a. In most cases this is the opinion of our hired consultant

3. Utilize current information. The so called 3rd generation of turf fields have made major advances in safety. It’s important to consider only the latest information available.

4. The costs for Synthetic fields include *concept plan proposed vs. Township natural Grass fields with native soils. The costs for fields are taken out of overall budget proposal. I support both lights and upgrades to existing facilities including additional parking using developer money. I do not support synthetic fields.
*amenities have been removed. This is just comparison of playing surfaces.

Much of the information you find during cursory web searches is often produced by companies trying to sell the products. Therefore it takes a little effort to find un-biased information.

Backgrounders
*Concept plan overview by Lower Macungie’s paid consultant. D’huy engineering. The township incurred 4,000.00 cost  to draft concept plan

Was the option to build additional grass fields on township property considered by staff as a less expensive alternative to synthetic?

  • “No” – Twp. Manager

Specs:

What is the specific brand proposed:

  • “This is typically part of the design process during which the surface is chosen by the Township. Commonly several different manufacturers and models will be reviewed for both quality and cost.” – Twp. Manager

Proposed infill:

  • “Infill for turf fields is most commonly crumb rubber mixed with silica.  There are alternatives made from cork and other products but they have not been on the market for very long, have very few US installations, and have been found in some cases to have a lower level of performance.  Colors and mixes vary between manufacturers.  Field Turf offers an infill product made from ground up sneakers that comes at a premium cost.  There is also a coconut husk product recently installed in Maryland (http://towncourier.com/city-hits-home-run-with-organic-infill-synthetic-turf/).  There isn’t much performance data available yet on these alternative products.  Both come at a premium cost and could easily be bid as alternates on your project.” – Twp. Manager

Rendering: See Below

Lifecycle Costs & Benefits
Q- Initial costs to install Synthetic Field vs. Natural Grass (according to Penn State research)

  • Natural Grass with native soil 2.25-5.25 per square ft. (Will get actual cost for LMT to install a new grass field cost/square ft.)

Q- Q- Initial costs to install Synthetic Field vs. Natural Grass (according to concept plan and LMT public works)

  • Synthetic: 850,000 for two fields according to proposal. Includes lining for multiple sports.
  • Natural Grass: Cost to install one natural grass field is 10,000 dollars according to LMT public works department.

Q – Annual Maintenance Costs (according to sports turf managers association)

  • Synthetic Infill 6,000 per year in materials and 375 labor hours per year.  (need proposal specific information) *sports managers association
  • Natural Grass – According to LMT public works “The yearly costs to maintain a typical field (180’ x 360’ =64,800 sq. ft.) would be around. $ 3,275.00 depending on the number of *cuts required.” This is based on yearly average of 35 cuts

Q- Replacement costs in 10-15 years for Synthetic Field  (10-15 years is the stated timeframe in the concept plan presentation – Link above)

  • Replacement costs for two fields is 800,000-900,000 in today’s dollars. (Twp. Manager) Add 3% inflation = 1,142,328.92 (amount * (1 + inflation rate)^number years)

Q- Revenue projections over 10 year lifespan

  • According to township manager this is a board decision and has not been taken into account yet. “   This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners.” – Twp. Manager

Q-Will final draft of field use agreement apply to Quarry same as any other township field?

  • Currently LMYA gets usage of Community center gym rent free. Will this same policy apply to Quarry field? – Draft in progress

Health/Injury issues Grass vs. Turf
Q- Long Term Health Risks
coming soon

Q- Does synthetic field increase injury risks vs. grass?

  • Answer – Concern risk is Low with correct footware but Medium to High with incorrect footware.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research) 

  • Most critical is right shoe for the surface. The correct shoe on synthetic turf dramatically reduces risk. Without the right foot ware injuries on turf fields increase dramatically.
  • Compared to grass fields not maintained to optimal conditions or very dry, synthetic fields can actually reduce risk of serious injuries although incidents of minor injuries (mainly abrasions) increase.

Q- Does synthetic field increase risk of staph infections? Answer – Concern risk is Low.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research)

  • The sun acts as disinfectant.

Surface and Air Temperature issues related to Synthetic Turf.

Q – What are the health issues related to surface heat? Answer – Concern risk is High.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research)

  • Children are less able to adapt to changes in Temperature – Higher potential for heat related injury.
  • In central Pennsylvania surface temperatures have been measured up to 175 degrees on synthetic fields measured on days when the surrounding air temperature is 79 degrees.
  • Generally synthetic turf registers 35 to 55 degrees hotter than natural grass.
  • Techniques to reduce surface temperature on hot days add labor and cost considerations.

9-19-14-lower-mac-jpg

 

Unknowns/future policy decisions to be made by the board if project moves forward:

What is the best and worse case scenarios for completion of the Sauerkraut punch through? (Completion of this planned project will allow for access to quarry park from a signalized intersection.)

  • Township engineer has been working with all parties methodically through each step and would not want to guess on a completion date. – Twp. Manager

 

What is the projected revenue stream that will be used to fund replacement costs? Are user fees being considered?

  • This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners. – Twp. Manager

Will LMYA be able to utilize the fields for free similar to the arrangement for the community center?

  • This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners. –  Twp. Manager

Related articles across the web

2014 Lower Macungie Santa Run Dates

Posted on by

The 2014 Lower Macungie Fire Department Santa Run routes can now be found on the website: www.firestation30.org. 

SANTA-RUN-SNOW-1The run is scheduled for Saturday 12/13/14 with a 3:30 p.m. departure time. The raindate Sunday 12/14/14.

The routes will tell you how Santa will enter developments and then give you his route street by street and turn by turn so that you can be ready to go with the kids if we don’t go directly by your house.

Alburtis FD plans to do their Santa Run on Sunday 12/7/14 (they will do some of the LMT developments west of Route 100). Trexlertown FD will do a run on 12/20/14 and will cover the Heritage Heights development.

 

Changing the conversation locally

Posted on by

I am not against spending money to improve our community on items identified through community planning projects. I am against spending money in a rushed an inefficient fashion. This is especially true when a place is faced with a one time windfall of money.

At the local level we need to change the conversation. That is where it all begins. 

Far too often we skip the step on the left leaping to the step on the right.

Screen Shot 2014-11-25 at 1.24.06 PM

 

Local Gov’t 101 – What does the County Controller do?

Posted on by

Every four years those of us in Lehigh county vote for the row offices. By and large, folks have no idea what these offices are or what the people in them do. I’m including myself here. At least up until a couple years ago. Link to Controllers 2013 report.

In Lehigh County one of those elected “row offices” is the County Controller. Next year it’s one of the positions that will be up for election. Currently the office is held by Glenn Eckhart. In Lehigh County the position is paid. In the past there has been discussion on whether the row offices in general should be elected or appointed. The job description is defined by the County Charter. Today the controllers office has 6 employees ranging from clerks to accountants.

According to the LC government website the Controllers duties include:

  • Examine the propriety of internal control
  • Assess compliance with statutory requirements
  • Evaluate operating procedures
  • Audit the accuracy and completeness of records and files pertaining to the receipt and disbursement of County funds by all officers, agents, and employees of the County

To sum this up the controller is basically an elected working manager for the county’s accounting dept. He/she is the elected fiscal watchdog of the County. The office conducts assessments of management performance and program results of county departments and agencies to evaluate efficiency and use of taxpayer funds. To sum this up the controller is responsible for delivering a yearly report to the Board of Commissioners. 

Although controller candidates usually run based on party affiliation they do their job best when they operate from a political neutral standpoint. Beyond the watchdog role in Lehigh County the controller only has one responsibility that directly has to do with policy. That is the controllers seat as secretary (and voting member) of the retirement board. It’s basically the controllers one direct influence on policy decisions but it’s a pretty important one in relation to the County’s long term finances.

WFMZ – Lehigh County Controller Annual Report

Here is a link to the Controllers complete 2013 report.

Vote to remove Quarry from Budget fails 3-2

Posted on by

Two Commissioners fail to stop 3.3 Million Dollar Quarry Plan

I am pleased that a motion was made last night to force an up/down vote on the line item. When you have an issue where there is a clear disconnect between the public, stakeholders and Commissioners it’s important residents know clearly where elected officials stand. The vote last night showed that.

In favor:
Brian Higgins
Ryan Conrad
Jim Lancsek

Concerned for numerous reasons: I list mine here and here
Myself
Doug Brown

With this clear information voters now can cast votes accordingly when they perform job reviews on the 5 seated Commissioners.

Couple other bottom lines for me:

First, the project isn’t supported by the most significant stakeholders including the Rec board or LMYA and synthetic fields aren’t a top priority in adopted Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan which lists dozens of other recommendations. Synthetic fields are merely mentioned but not identified as a top priority nor are they supported as a priority by any survey or poll. In spending this large amount of money I would look for a high level of consensus and grass roots support. Neither exists here. As a member of the public pointed out last night, this is not our money to spend based on our personal wants.

Next, the proposal and line item was inserted into the proposed budget literally out of nowhere. The whole process felt was rushed. Never in my life have I seen a local municipality decide to spend 3.3 million dollars (13% of the total budget) on one line item with so little public discussion and so few answers to the most basic questions.

Lastly, residents at the latest BOC Mtg. complained directly we weren’t answering simple questions. Unfortunately, in this case I agree with them. Personally I try to respond to every communication and question we get. The problem is I do not have answers. And apparently based on silence from 4 other commissioners when asked repeatedly the same basic questions about the project no one else does either.

We have not done nearly enough due diligence on this issue. This is fundamentally why I voted to remove the line item from the budget. Last night we needed to pump the brakes on this project but that effort failed 3-2.

Moving forward:
The budget process and Quarry’s inclusion in it simply earmarks money for the project for one years timeframe.  In the coming year there will definitely be much more consideration as planning for the project moves forward. Eventually there will be more votes to authorize the project construction.

The park will also certainly be an item voters consider in next May’s primaries when Commissioner Brown and Lancsek run for re-election.