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.

VBLOG – Lower Mac Quarry Park: Understanding the 1 time windfall

How does a township justify a property tax increase (first in a decade) and then one year later include in a proposed budget line item of a 3.3M to fund a proposed synthetic regional field at Quarry Park? The answer lies primarily in 3 one time windfalls that led to one time additional monies this year. They can be categorized as:

-Real Estate Transfer Taxes
-Hamilton Crossings Recreation Fee money
-One time budget transfer of a surplus from the Solid Waste Fund. (refuse bills)

Whether or not spending this money on synthetic fields is the right decision is a topic for later this week. Here were some initial thoughts I had.

This video deals with explaining the 3 sources of 1 time money that led to a discussion about spending 3.3M at Quarry. Before we discuss spending or NOT spending the money it’s important to understand how we got it.

 

Chuck Marohn’s new book: A world class transportation system.

So excited for Charles Marohn’s new ebook “A World Class Transportation System“. It’s a short ebook but nonetheless a great value at 2.99 on Amazon. You’ll finish it in one night.

As a member of strongtowns I got an email tonight with my free copy. I jumped right into it. Out the gate the very first sentence is so spot on. This book deals with transportation but you can take the first sentence and apply it to so many issues we face in this nation.

America is having a one-dimensional discussion on *fill in the blank. The central question – how do we get more money to continue with our current approach – fails to adequately explain why our current approach has left us lacking funds in the first place.

 

*Applies to education, transportation… you name it. This is the fundamental problem in America. I highly recommend this book and also Marohns first “Thoughts on Building Strongtowns” to any elected official struggling with the status quo and soul searching for answers.

 

 

Quarry Park

Last night at the first budget workshop the Board of Commissioners (BOC) for the first time since the plan was unveiled engaged in a dialogue about the 3.3M quarry park proposal. It’s safe to say at this time Commissioners Higgins and President Conrad seem to be in favor of the 3.3M line item. Myself and Commissioner Brown expressed reservations. Commissioner Lancsek was quiet and did not speak directly on the topic. Here is the express times coverage. 

I outlined the project in my agenda preview for the 9/18 meeting when the concept plan was first unveiled

I spent two weeks since conducting what I felt was essential due diligence meeting with: Township manager and staff, fellow Commissioners, LMYA President, Township Parks & Recreation board and many residents.

I am comfortable saying at this point I do not support the budget item as proposed today. There are number of factors why. Neither the Parks Board or LMYA has come out saying turf fields are an immediate priority. I also believe that expenditures of this magnitude warrant more than just a few weeks of public discussion. And lastly, I prefer these sorts of big ticket concept plans being funded incrementally over time in phases. This way we can install an improvement, gauge it’s success and then if warranted continue to execute the plan by funding more improvements. It’s safe to say considering an expenditure of this magnitude in such a short time frame would be unprecedented.

Additionally, it’s important to understand that for a long time now the twp. has been VERY supportive of our park system. Over the years we have made significant investments on an annual basis. We continue to do so year after year. In fact on average since 2003 the township has spent 333,000 dollars a year on park land improvements.This doesn’t include: Staff, LMYA & Lazors contributions, the township parks programs ect.

I challenge anyone to find another Lehigh County municipality who consistently spends on average more per year than Lower Macungie. I contend today the greater need for the parks system isn’t land improvements but rather addressing ongoing maintenance and staffing issues. For years now the parks board has requested additional dedicated parks staff. Personally I take that a step further and believe we need a FT or PT manager position specifically for parks. There is some logic in considering this a pre-requisite to building a regional athletic complex. Administration of a new complex was a concern raised by LMYA and the Parks Board.

 

That being said, it is important to understand where the money has come from allowing this conversation at all. Primarily it is the following one-time sources.

 

  • A transfer of money from the solid waste fund
  • Real Estate Transfer Tax Associated with Jaindl Warehouses. To date we have collected 120,000 with another 60,000 expected soon totally 200,000. This is from the first 3 of 7 warehouses associated with the Spring Creek debacle. There is a possibility for up to 4 more though only 3 so far have come through land development.
  • Hamilton Crossings Recreation Impact Fee. (in lieu of orginally proposed bypass ballfields) Approx 600,000

 

These include but are not limited to items such as:
Playing fields, upgrades and courts for: Basketball, Tennis, Pickleball, Baseball dugouts
Playground equipment, Parking areas, Pavillions, Pool Slide and other pool improvements
Crosswalks, Ampitheater, Fences, Bathrooms, Hills at Lockridge community center
New gym floor

This is just a small sampling of the many items improved or built over the last decade or so. I support continuing this level of spending on our park system augmented with developer impact fees whenever possible.

Alternate Proposal & Priorities

Lastly, at the end of the meeting President Conrad challenged those who expressed concern to “bring alternative proposals to the table on Oct. 29″. I found that a bit alarming since it almost reflects a philosophy that since we have extra money this year we should quickly figure out a way to spend it. I disagree with that thinking. 

There is another alternative. That is not spend the money at all this year. Again, we do not have to spend the money. Politicians so quick and eager to spend public money is a part of the problem with gov’t at all levels.

But Conrad has asked for alternative proposals. If the board insists on spending this money then here is a list of items I prioritize higher.

1. Open Space Acquisition. There is a mandate for this. I ran very clearly on a preservation platform defeating 2 incumbents by large margins. Secondly, the 20/20 visioning plan, the Parks Comprehensive plan and other webpage surveys all show an overwhelming majority supports open space preservation. I believe open space preservation is a strategy we must employ to keep taxes low over the long term. I outline that here.

2. Infrastructure improvements. The ACT 209 plan identifies intersections that are failing under current conditions and also ones likely to fail under future development. Not having to spend money on certain major capital improvements directly relates to item number 1. But there are a number of problem intersections today. Brookside and East Texas Rd. & Brookside and Indian Creek are two. These are two priorities for me.

Above represents 2 areas unrelated to park improvements that I see as higher priorities today. All these items have been the topic of extensive conversation over the past few years. However, since Conrad requested I am prepared to propose a specific alternate plan relating to this years budget which would include:

1. Budgeting the Hamilton Crossings Rec Fee money to lights at Quarry in 2015. This in my mind represents a responsible start to exploring upgrading Quarry. I support spending all the collected recreation fees on Quarry. This is approx 600,000. The responsible way to fund a comprehensive plan is  to do so incrementally over time. This sets the wheels in motion to get our regional field, but to do so in a more fiscally responsible way.

1a. Expanding the Quarry Turf concept plan to a full comprehensive plan for the whole park including a dog park. This ensures more residents benefit from Quarry upgrades.

2. Budgeting for a Dog Park in 2015. This is a relatively (compared to turf plan) low cost item. This is also an item that has been “on the radar” so to speak for nearly 2 years. The Parks Board has had a dog park point person for well over a year. There exists a resident group that expressed support for the project and a Facebook group with over 100 members who are actively lobbying for a dog park. Approx 25,000

3. Budgeting for either a FT or PT parks manager to hold an admin role. I consider this a pre-requisite to any major expansion of our park system. Esp any expansion that would enter us into the realm of managing regional parks. This manager should be hired and in place before construction of any admin heavy uses like regional park or dog park.

4. Open space preservation “lock box” of Jaindl funds. “Banking” the approx 200,000 (with potential for up to 500,000 upon build out) in one time real estate transfer taxes gained Jaindl warehouses to an open space preservation fund. I feel very strongly about this. This is money generated from the loss of 700 acres of farmland. All Commissioners including those that supported the rezoning expressed “regret” at losing the land. So I see this one time money associated with that project as a chance to recapture open space in other areas. To me, this is a no-brainer. After having lost 700 acres, a goal should be to preserve 700 acres elsewhere. The recent EAC whitepaper identified some potential targets. This includes 4 tracts with the potential to be developed with over 1,100 units. This would roughly equal about 3,500 new residents.

Surplus. Planning for fiscal sustainability. The remaining money should not be spent this year. It should be held over undesignated in surplus until the board sets it’s policy on the homestead exclusion which I proposed in January as a way to reduce the tax burden of homeowners through an assessment reduction. At that point, we will have a much clearer picture of the township finances moving forward.

The above plan addresses long standing needs. Sets the Quarry plan wheels in motion, but “pumps the brakes” on spending 3.3M+ in one budget cycle. It also sets us up to be able to manage a regional facility in the future. And lastly, by “banking” the rest of the surplus it allows us to understand the impacts of the Homestead property tax assessment reduction. This will allow for a clearer picture of township finances moving forward. 

 

 

The street light fee.

Last night in the first budget presentation an elimination of the ornamental street light user fee was proposed in the managers cover letter. This was stylized as a “tax reduction.”

Problem is, here is how the street light program works today. Residents who want a street light have to get 70% of homeowners in their neighborhood to agree and sign a petition. If this happens the township ok’s the installation. These residents who want the ornamental lights then pay the fee. This covers the electric costs. Currently, residents who do not have streetlights pay nothing.

Questions:

  • This year electric for the street lights cost 250,000. This was 100% paid by the user fee. If we eliminate the user fee that means we need to make up that 250,000 in the general fund. Essentially, that means everyone including those who not have lights will now be paying for them. QUESTION: Is that a tax reduction? Or is it a gimmick…Are we in fact considering swapping a direct user fee paid by those who benefit with a new backdoor liability paid for by everyone?

    Link to information on current township street light program.

  • If this happens, do we have a plan to install streetlights in every single neighborhood without them that wants them?
Should everyone pay for streetlights or should users pay directly?

Should everyone pay for streetlights or should users pay directly?

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 9/18/14

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

Here is the Agenda with Detail

Hearings: Plan approval Trexlertown Shopping Center. This is a pad site that will be next to the Giant gas station. This is a project that was a part of initial concept but never built. The likely user will be the People First Credit Union which will move to this new facility that will include a drive through. The existing credit union will be an expanded state store. 

Announcements and presentations – QUARRY PARK PROPOSAL – This will be the big agenda item tonight. Please bear in mind this will be the first time I have seen this presentation and also the first time it’s presented in public. I have no opinion on this now other then I need more information.

First some background information. A few weeks ago we budgeted 3,000 to hire a consultant D’huy engineering to come up with a concept plan for quarry park centering around the installation of lights and turf fields.

Tonight’s presentation is that concept plan. (IT IS JUST A CONCEPT NOW) This was moved forward since these improvements were identified as part of the recently adopted parks and recreation comprehensive plan.

Here is an outline of what’s in the proposal:
QUARRY PARK ATHLETIC FIELDS 
PROPOSAL SUMMARY

  • Lower Macungie Township has hired D’Huy Engineering to develop a plan for Quarry that includes artificial turf and lighted fields. The cost was 3000.00. This was a recommendation of the adopted Parks & Recreation plan. (I supported creating the concept plan)
  • Lighted, turf fields are suggested in the Township’s recently completed Parks & Recreation Plan. The Board made the decision that Quarry was best location to explore these options. (I support this notion)
  • The proposed project scope includes:
    • (2) artificial turf fields for lacrosse, soccer, field hockey and football where the current flat fields are located- between baseball fields #1 and #2;
    • Lights;
    • Walking path around perimeter of fields and park;
    • Expanded parking;
    • Renovated comfort station/concession/storage building
  • A third field, including a combination multi-purpose field and a baseball field where Quarry #1 is located was proposed, but considered for a future phase due to cost.
  • The rough budget is $2.7 million:
    • $700,000 from the Hamilton Crossings development
    • $2 million from ??
  • Primary partner/users could be LMYA, but the Township would rent the fields as well, including to:
    • School District for after school use
    • Elite/select/tournament teams
    • Tournaments
  • Project could be part of a larger project involving purchase of the adjacent Muse Tract for development of a sports complex; (This is something I support as this would take developable property off the market while also compensating the landowner. This parcel is currently zoned Ag-Protected.)
  • Hoped for benefit from this development is to move some uses from smaller neighborhood parks to one regional park at Quarry.
At this point I have many questions. Again, remember this is a concept plan. How do we pay for this? What do residents think? What is LMYA’s position? What we know now is we have 700,000 of developer recreation fees. This money must be used for recreation. I think this is a good way to spend it. We have a robust youth sports program in LMYA. Survey after survey shows residents desire for park facilities. This being the case, there are long term cost and benefits of field turf & lights. Mainly, this revolves around being able to use the field after dark and also not having to rotate the fields. The concept plan is a good idea. BUT….The million dollar question of course is how do we pay for the rest of this?

The other big note for tonight is that Bruce Fosselman our township manager will present the first draft of the 2015 preliminary budget This is step one in a LONG budget process that will take us from now until the end of the year. Step one is presentation of the managers proposed budget. From now until the end the budget will be scrutinized at a series of budget workshops. . I will post the budget workshop dates ASAP.

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat 2014!!

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 at 4.38.53 PM

 

Remember, It’s a cold hard fact… On average, children are more than twice as likely to be hit by a car on Halloween than on any other day of the year. But it is COMPLETELY avoidable! –

Halloween Safety Tips from safekids.org Top Tips

  • When selecting a costume make sure it is the right size to prevent trips and falls.
  • Decorate costumes and bags with reflective tape or stickers and, if possible, choose light colors. Since masks can sometimes obstruct a child’s vision, try non-toxic face paint and makeup whenever possible.
  • Have kids use glow sticks or flashlights to help them see and be seen by drivers.
  • Children under the age of 12 should not be alone at night without adult supervision. If kids are mature enough to be out without supervision, they should stick to familiar areas that are well lit and trick-or-treat in groups.
  • Popular trick-or-treating hours are 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. so be especially alert for kids during those hours.

Downtown on a night the arena is dark.

Naysayers: “The arena will only bring people downtown on game nights or when events are planned at the arena”

Pictured below is a random Wednesday. The arena was dark this night. This is the Hamilton Kitchen & Bar. There were 50 ppl dining al fresco on new outdoor patio. From the outside looking in it looked like most tables were full inside. Up and down the street around the arena people were everywhere. Downtown feels like a city again. People who haven’t spent much time there last 20 years are now doing so again. Will it last?

Yes, the city still has issues. But it’s tough to say this isn’t a step in the right direction. 

The NIZ will be successful because its MUCH MORE than just the arena. If it was just the arena, or an entertainment district or a convention center or any of the usual “magic bullets” it wouldn’t have worked.

The NIZ is mixed use, residential and commercial all integrated together in the time tested traditional urban form. That was always the key.

On a night the arena is dark, Hamilton Kitchen was packed.

On a night the arena is dark, Hamilton Kitchen was packed.

Arena thoughts on opening week.

10627196-largeRead about from afar about the opening of Allentown’s arena since I’m out of town. From what I can tell, the concerns about a traffic and parking apocalypse were much ado about nothing. I didn’t see first hand but will Tuesday at the Tom Petty concert. I’ll take pictures & blog.

Couple thoughts. NIZ, hypocrisy & Traffic.

Personally, I support rolling back most top down subsidies that skew local markets and leave communities strapped with long term liabilities. But in this case it’s pretty much the height of hypocrisy to complain about losing a tiny bit of EIT (which is earned in the city of Allentown) but on the other hand gleefully accept taxpayer money to induce a strip mall.  I can’t stand hypocrisy. This is the height of it.

I’d be interested to look at the other NIZ objectors and how much state money they have or are soon accepting to induce development projects. Hanover Township and the Fedex project I suspect would be pretty interesting.

Lower Macungie officials weigh in on NIZ.

  • Second, the parking and traffic apocalypse predicted by naysayers didn’t materialize. I think this is why. A city arena with an interconnected street system will always handle event traffic better then a single use suburban arena served by one entrance in and out. Think a system of valves. Yes, we saw a spike before and after the event. But that’s a symptom of success. In Allentown concert-goers have a dozen options to get in and out of town on an already existing grid network. There will be increased traffic on some main routes but a savvy driver can find alternate routes. In a suburban event center the norm is usually one supersized and super expensive road. One way in and one way out. No matter how many lanes we build, the induced traffic will fill the lanes leading to gridlock immediately before and after an event. What makes this worse are 6 lane mega access roads are typically used to capacity only a few days a year. The ROI is very low for these single purpose roads.

Blogging Strongtowns gathering day 2

Blogging Strongtowns Day 2.

images

Just listened to the unveiling of the newest strongtowns traveling discussion. Chuck Marohn will begin to deliver it in towns across America over the next few months. The discussion is in the mold of the very successful curbside chats

Chuck delivered the presentation to a room full of dynamic people who will then critique. The purpose is for the group to “sharpen the steel” so to speak and improve the presentation. Fascinating to watch. This is truly less of a conference and more of a working gathering. This session was for me the highlight so far. Below are my thoughts, stream of consciousness style. (The critique aspect comes in the very entertaining parliamentary style!) I write this as I listen and participate in the discussion. Though I do much more listening vs. participating here. The parliamentary style is an energizing way to synthesize the thoughts of 30 ppl, but better suited to those who process things much more quickly then I do. Today I do more listening than talking.

Transportation in the next American city. Reactions how it relates to Lower Macungie and the problems we face.

Across the suburbs of the LV the math of dumb growth is wholly contingent on an availability of cheap open space and green-fields and the ability to expand outward onto them with subsidized infrastructure. This is accomplished via institutionalized top down systems. These systems and the money made available through them mainly relate to bran new single purpose infrastructure needed to support an outward pattern of growth. This is inherently artificial in that without the subsidies, the infrastructure would prove unaffordable and likely not be built since it is so expensive. Even when it’s not directly subsidized, it is indirectly subsidized since the cost to maintain these systems always exceeds the value they create. 

LMT’s unique situation is further compounded by the fact that currently we rely on state taxpayers to fund police protection. Someday we’ll have to fund that ourselves and someday (sooner rather then later) we will run out of open space. As it stands what we’ve built overtop of our former greenfields is woefully unproductive since we inherited the long term financial obligations to maintain. This low return on investment growth pattern was only made possible in the first place by artificial (meaning not financially sustainable over the long term) means. This is the math of dumb growth.

There is a life-cyle of sprawl. It’s a cycle that we’re (for now) locked into. For a decade we were on the height of that curve. Here, one time and temporary revenues associated with hyper growth led to a bloated rainy day fund. For a decade we lived on these funds and had no property tax. That was the height of the curve since money (one time) coming in exceeded liabilities. Only recently have we started the decline. This began a year ago with the first property tax in Lower Macungie in over 12 years.

The choice today is break the cycle, or continue pave over our last remaining open space. Doing this might delay the inevitable but eventually we’ll have to address issues related to long term financial health. Delaying further will only dig a deeper hole.

So how do we get away from the math of dumb growth and get back to a formula that allows us to maintain our existing system over the long term? This correlating to a sustainably low tax rate. How do we transition away from relying on mechanisms like one time monies, other people’s money (OP$) and surplus money and get back to financial productivity, sustainability and resilience?

Big part of the problem is that our top down system loses all sense of nuance at the local level. This isn’t because local leaders are incapable of making nuanced decisions. It’s because the top down heavily bureaucratic system doesn’t allow for it. It forces square pegs in round holes. The current system rewards dumb (or at least shortsighted) decisions with massive amounts of money. For example: Locally, millions of dollars of state grants were rewarded to induce development along the Rt. 222 “bypass”. A massive expenditure of money for a band-aid that we could have never afforded locally. (everything short of grade separation and getting rid of the signals on the bypass is a band aid) Problem is, this will lead us to spend more money down the line as it will compound underlying issues and delay the real end game. Do I even have to mention again the true insanity of believing we need to induce any kind of development in Lower Macungie township? Yet alone a strip mall. We remain one of the fastest growing townships in the state…

*Above I refer mostly the the millions of dollars of state grants (direct gov’t subsidies) rather then the TIF.. Eventhough I voted against TIF, I acknowledge the argument is more complicated. 

 In other words, how do we at minimum build a system that pays for itself and at best a system that creates value/wealth instead of eroding it? How do we flip the system on it’s head? How do we transition from top down to bottom up? Measure success on quantity instead of quality. What’s the metric for high quality of life, sustainability low taxes, good schools and affordable transportations?

First and foremost local leaders must lead they cannot be followers. Let local leaders make decisions based on local needs. Don’t accept one size fits all. Question assumptions and systems. Build what we can afford to maintain. Accept we can’t change this overnight, but we have to start somewhere to incrementally changing the underlying system. The current system at worse does not allow this. At best does not make it easy. 

Random thoughts and great one-liners

  • Our land use policies need to respond to congestion. We have to stop throwing money at the problem. (OP$)
  • Today we have socially engineered a society. We want to unplug this. Our engineers need to lead the charge. – Joe Minicozzi.
  • Police giving out giving tickets same spot every day, day in and day out. (“bypass”)That doesn’t mean you have a ppl breaking the law problem. It means we have a design problem. #dangerousbydesign
  • ROI over the long term… address diminishing returns. Create more systems that hold value. MATURE OUR RESPONSES! (stop throwing money at problems, esp OP$)
  • People are not obstacles in the clear zone and recovery area on a street designed to capture value (vs. a road) People are shoppers, neighbors and commuters.

  • The challenge was presented regarding state roads outside local control. This is a common excuse given in LMT. Enough. We have to stop accepting boilerplate designs on our state roads when they contradict local planning goals. We need to stop taking up front “free money” and build roads that will cost us more down the line. (the ponzi scheme). It’s ok to say. “You will not do this in our town”. In fact I would argue that is a local officials job. Penndot is slowly talking the talk, but in my observation less inclined to walk the walk. It takes a local muni defining and defending it’s local goals. In our top down system change is painfully slow.
  • Partisan politics is irrelevant to these issues. Period. The room I am in right now is filled with people from across the spectrum.

Lumber Street opening soon!

Lumber street will be opening any day now! Today, final touches were being completed in the form of line painting. Great work by Macungie Council getting this done and paid for. Clearly having one of the Boroughs main N-S connections on it’s local grid as a pot hole filled dirt road was a major problem.

I want to also give big compliments to the contractor JC & Son excavating. Having a property adjoining the road project I have to say they were nothing but great.  Yes, road construction is noisy. That’s a fact of life. The crew however was pleasant and helpful answering my many questions. And looks like they will complete the project on time. (early even?)

photo (59)

17 Ft!! Travel lanes. . . This will most certainly lead to excessive speeds. In almost all cases wide roads are fast roads…

This brings me back to the one criticism I had and feel even more strongly about now that the road is finished. And again note, this isn’t a criticism of council or staff. I happen to think Macungie right now has very good proactive council. This is a criticism of a dated SALDO and the outdated thinking it reflects. SALDO is the set of standards that dictate how we build infrastructure. Oftentimes they are boilerplate standards with no regard for the context of a community.

The fact is (I’d be shocked if it wasn’t) we just built THE fastest road in the Borough. 17 ft travel lanes!!!!! is excessive to the extreme. Federal standards for local roads are 9-12. 17 is pretty much insane. Again, it’s probably the result of what was dictated by the Borough’s SALDO. 

This reflects the old bigger is better mentality. One that makes no sense most places but definitely not in a small Borough.

Bigger in terms of streets always means two things:

1. The roads design speed will be much faster than the posted speed
2. More expensive to build and maintain.  

This translates to two things. If this road is say 30% too large, it will cost 30% more to maintain long term. And second, when design speed is too fast, people will drive too fast. This is regardless of what the posted speed is.

How do we fix this? I feel strongly that on-street parking should be allowed on at least one side. This would narrow the road and get more value and ROI for taxpayers. It would also go a long way to fixing the Borough (perceived) parking issues. . .

🙂

Macungie's parking problem?

Macungie’s parking problem?

Now of course I say that tongue in cheek as I honestly believe there is no parking problem in the Borough. Never was, and likely never will be. This is from the standpoint of both a current business owner and also former resident. But as it stands now the Borough now owns ALOT more blacktop. Shouldn’t we get our most bang for the buck out of our new ultra fast ultra big expensive road? (STROAD)