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.

On Tuesday say no to politics as usual

Posted on by

In an email to his supporters Ryan Conrad writes about the vote in favor of re-implementing a property tax. He writes:

The other candidates in this race have been silent on this issue.  Where do they stand?  Voters deserve an answer.
-Ryan Conrad in a pretty misleading letter to his supporters

Problem is, this is not true. I’ve written about the tax issue at length in many forums. I was in fact THE first candidate to address fiscal sustainability months ago warning voters about the pending increase long before it was on the table.

I  support sustainably low taxes. But I don’t just give lip service. I’ve also laid out the “how”. By not addressing the ‘how’ politicians simply pander for votes and engage in politics as usual.

Mr. Conrad states he is opposed to re-implementing a property tax. The problem is he has provided no roadmap and zero direction on how he plans on keeping taxes sustainably low. I on the other hand have. On Tuesday Conrad and Roger Reis failed to pair ‘no’ votes with further cuts, alternatives they support or systemic changes they would implement to support their positions.

I have done this by outlining a path to fiscal sustainability through smart growth that addresses the root causes:

  • Here via a letter to the editor in the East Penn Press, patch and on my blog.
  • And here overviewing the nuances of the issue.
  • And here as far back as 1 year ago pleading with the BOC to initiate cost and benefit analysis of zoning changes.

I’ve outlined a roadmap grounded in smart growth where we can continue to grow in a financially sustainable way that protects quality of life and leads to increased revenue while avoiding the specter of constantly raising taxes.

Voters in LMT are clearly smart enough to see through ‘politics as usual’. This is how I won the primary even though I was outspent by huge margins in a coordinated campaign that enlisted television ads, fake newsletters and a barrage of robo-calls on voters.

So I ask you one last time, on Tuesday help me finish what we started.

-Ron 

85th percentile speed

Posted on by

Followup to my “Penndot in a nutshell” post.

Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified

To try to make sure my criticism is justified I felt it’s important to understand the “85th percentile rule” or rather the way it’s applied. So I spent the AM trying to wrap my head around it. The better I understand it the crazier I think it’s application is.

What is the 85th % rule: 

The concept is rather simple: the speed limit of a road is set by determining the speed of 85% of cars that go down it. In other words, the speed limit is solely set by the speed of drivers.

 

Problems with this:

  • Drivers drive at speeds according to risk to themselves. Not other motorists or pedestrians.
  • When you have a system based on characteristics of drivers influenced by the environment, the solution is always to “change the environment” through “improvements” which are usually astonishingly expensive.
  • The 15% who exceed the 85% are the ones who… ya know. Kill people.
  • My biggest problem is the complete and total lack of taking into account neighborhood context. Meaning how does the road interact with the built environment? Is it a rural 35 road next to a cornfield or is it an urban 35 mph road next to a dense town center. Lower Macungie is no longer rural. It is urban. That ship sailed 20 years ago.

Transit blogger “Cap’n Transit” has the solution. Take the 85th percentile principle and flip it’s application.  Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified. So flip the application of the theory. Cap’n transit suggests:

1. Decide on a speed limit based on the pedestrian, cyclist and built environment you want to see along this road. (In other words do not look at the road in a vacuum! CONTEXT matters)

2. Design the road so that 85% of drivers will feel comfortable traveling under that speed.

Voila. As “Cap’n Transit” points out “by reversing those two steps, we make safety a priority over speed, and we acknowledge the value of a safe pedestrian environment in maintaining a livable community.” Community context, in general this would leave the speed limit on the bypass where it is (where common sense says it should actually be higher…), but lower it where context dictates it.

Penndot in a nutshell.

Posted on by

A resident submitted a request to explore the speed limit on Willow Lane/East Texas Rd. a few months ago. Since Willow Ln otherwise known by Penndot as “State Rt. 3003” is a state road even though local Commissioners agreed in theory to a speed limit reduction the request had to go through the Ultimate Bureaucracy (tm) of PENNDOT.

Now bear in mind this section of Willow Lane goes through the Village of East Texas. It’s a long time residential neighborhood. In some cases homes are 20 feet away from the roadway. It’s an area that’s been a residential community for almost a century. The area of study encompassed East Texas Rd. at Brookside through East Texas to just beyond the Willows Restaurant.

Fast forward. I was wondering what was up so I emailed Bruce our Township Manager for an update. I rec’d the following letter from Penndot that was sent to LMT.

Here is everything wrong with Penndot in a nutshell.

Follow me here. Residents submitted a petition signed by nearly the entire neighborhood requesting a speed limit reduction since they felt the speed didn’t match up with the residential character of the Village of East Texas. The township supported the request. In fact they even identify East Texas as a traditional town center area. In other words all interested parties who actually understand the context of the road agree.

But based on one sized fits all engineering guidelines, Penndot’s answer is….. wait for it. . .

To actually increase the design speed of the road!!!

Let that sink in. This my friends is insanity. Penndot’s answer is increasing design speed by widening the street, flattening the street, removing all trees so cars can drive faster, THEN posting a speed limit so they slow down?

Penndot completely ignores the context and character of the roadway with it’s one sized fits all application of the 85th percentile speed. It applies standards blindly as if every road was a connector street.
85% speed followup post.

This letter reflects everything parodied in this wildly popular strongtowns.org youtube video entitled “Conversation with an Engineer”. Everything wrong with the “Ultimate Bureaucracy” ™ of Penndot. If you have never seen this take a moment and watch it. I can’t wait til we come up with a community serving plan for Hamilton Blvd. and Penndot just completely torpedoes it. Can’t wait….

 

 

NOTE: I’ve contacted the offices of Rep. Schlossberg (serves on transportation committee), Rep Mackenzie who represents LMT and State Senator Pat Browne. I wish to have them walk this neighborhood and see the situation on the ground. I will report back when I get replies. 

1PM: ADDED SOME PHOTOS FOR CONTEXT for those not familiar with the neighborhood.

Speeding problems? Cut down the trees so it’s safer for cars to drive faster!!!

Residential character that the “one sized fits all” Penndot design standards completely ignore.

The gentleman who first circulated the petition lives in this area. He was absolutely correct to request a speed reduction. Turns out almost 100% of his neighbors agree.

Lower Macungie Meeting Agenda 10/17

Posted on by

FYI – This is a practice I started and will continue as a member of the BOC. With these previews while I may indicate a voting inclination, it in no way means my mind is made up on any issue. Back during a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner once spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong.

My hope is this opens the door for conversations before public meetings. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was people 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 and my thoughts on issues before they come to a vote  in front of the board. This is one mechanism to do that.

Plan approval for Spring Creek Properties Settlement Subdivision
It’s well documented I have opposed the Jaindl rezoning through the whole process starting in 2010. This deals with approving the settlement otherwise known as Plan ‘B’. Plan B which I supported as an alternative to not being able to stop and reverse the shameful rezoning of 700 acres of farmland to commercial, industrial and residential. I supported plan B since it represents a reduction of intensity of the project. The agenda detail for this item is massive. The resolution itself being 15 pages.

 

I would grudgingly vote yes for this item despite the plans not getting approval from the planning commission at this point. Why? Because the negotiations for plan B were in good faith.  Also the planning commission in their letter indicated they were only hesitant to approve because there were still issues to hammer out. They correctly stated they felt they couldn’t forward a plan to the Board of Commissioners they felt had some question marks. I believe on Thursday staff will announce an opinion that the issues have been resolved. If that’s the case my vote would be yes. Planning Commission concern dealt primarily with Jaindl guarantees to build his part of the Sauerkraut extension.


Please note, I am not in favor of the extension nor have I ever been throughout this whole process going back to 2 years ago. As a potential Commissioner I would be inheriting this terrible plan. I never felt it was appropriate to create a new costly arterial connecting what will be a warehouse district to our main residential areas. I remain fearful of the truck traffic further “bleeding” into our residential heart. Additionally the punch through will cost Lower Macungie and school district dollars. Specifically for Lower Mac, we must pay for a new “T” intersection near Quarry Rd. Additionally, perpetual maintenance of new signals and the roadway itself will be shouldered by the township. I am generally opposed to construction of new roads (taking on new liabilities) until cost and benefit analysis has been conducted and presented to the public. This is one reason I considered plan B somewhat a success because of a concession by Jaindl to keep the furthest westward expansion of Sauerkraut as a private road. This means the township will not be responsible for perpetual maintenance of a new road created almost solely to serve Jaindl’s development.

 

Here are the following questions I would ask during the hearing:

 

1. What are the total township liabilities being assumed in dollars immediately and over the course of multiple lifecycles. This includes new T intersection, down the road improvements and perpetual maintenance of new roads and signals.

 

2. What are the financial obligations of the school district? What does this mean in terms of the school budget? Note the district is responsible for a large section of “new Sauerkraut”.


3. What is:
a. Planning justification if any for the new road.
b. Engineering justification of the new road.

 

4. How exactly is it forecasted tractor trailers will get into and out of the new warehouse development.

 

Resolution 2013-27 – Estates at Millrace.
Another inherited project. I would support the recommendation of the planning commission and planning and zoning committee.
Other items of note:
ARLE Grant Work – This is a grant we rec’d from the Automated Red Light Enforcement program in Philadelphia. (there may be other cities as well)
Money made from fines is distributed in the form of grants. I support utilizing this money to further enhance Willow Lane walkability. Specifically the placement of a permanent “stalker board” and textured crosswalk at mid-block location at wheatland drive. I do not know if these are being considered but this would be my input.
There is a recommendation for Ms. Pandl (our planning director) to attend the next zoning hearing board meeting. I support this. I support almost all of the recent variance requests for Allen Organ and Hamilton Crossings. There are some sign variance requests I have issues with for Hamilton Crossings and I will attend the ZHB meeting to voice them.
Request for clarification of tree tenders recommendation for the EAC. 
I read that the next General Administration committee meeting is canceled. This is an issue because the EAC has been looking for direction on this issue since July now. It is now being put off again til late November. I have a problem with this. It’s time to address this issue.

Lower Macungie Leaf Collection

Posted on by

From LMT Website:

Public Works – Roads – Leaf Collection

Please do not place your leaves out any earlier than the starting date. Leaves will clog the sewer system and could cause damage.

Barring complications with weather, equipment or emergencies, leaf collection will begin October 21st and go through until November 29th. Check the East Penn Press and our website, http://www.lowermac.com in late September and October for updates. We will concentrate our efforts in neighborhoods with mature trees. Areas not collected are newer developments until such time as these trees mature. We will however, check these streets regularly and collect as needed. Our contractor and the Public Works crews start at the Eastern edge of the Township and work across toward the Western boundaries. We cannot give you specific information as to when your leaves will be collected. We recommend that you have them raked out at the beginning of each week. Once we have made our pass through your street, we will not return until the next week. We usually collect once a week for 6 weeks during the fall season. Be advised that if we encounter winter weather and have to plow, any leaves in the road will be plowed. We will make every effort to get the roads cleaned up before winter. For FINAL COLLECTION the week of November 25th through November 29th, you are advised to have your leaves out on Monday morning of the final week. Once we have made our last pass on your street, we will not return.

  • Leaves must be raked to the edge of the road into long narrow rows (windrows) not more than 18 inches into the road.
NOTE: For your safety and that of the public, leaf piles placed in the road beyond 18 inches from the edge of the road are a hazard to the motoring public,school buses and emergency vehicles.

Leaves not placed as described or leaves left around parked cars will not be removed. Do not mix dog waste, branches, twigs, rocks, shrubbery, grass clippings or plastic bags in with leaves. Do not place tarps over your leaves. We will bypass them and they will not be collected. Curbside leaf collection does not apply to commercial/industrial properties, condominium developments, manufactured home communities, apartment developments or any other properties that are not part of the townships municipal trash collection.

If you wish to remove your leaves earlier or later than our scheduled pick up, you may deposit them at The Yard Waste Recycling Center located at 5536 Indian Creek Road. Hours are:

Hours are: May 1st – May 31st – M-W-F  9AM-7PM, S-S Noon to 7PM
June 1st – October 31st – M-W-F-S 9AM-7PM, S – Noon to 7PM
November 1st – April 30th – M-W-F-S-S Noon to 5PM

If you have questions about leaf removal, contact us at 610.966.4343 (x117) or Dfowler@lowermac.com

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat 2013

Posted on by

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat is Oct. 31st 6-9pm

FYI – Trick-or-Treat Night in Lower Macungie Township is October 31st from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.  If you live in a neighborhood with a homeowner’s association check with your individual HOA for additional or alternate dates inside your neighborhood.

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.

OTHERS:
Upper Macungie will hold Trick or Treat Night on Friday, Oct. 25, keeping with the tradition of holding the event on the Friday prior to Halloween.

Emmaus Trick-or-Treat Night is Thursday, October 31, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. There is no rain date.

Board votes to subdivide Kratzer

Posted on by

Last night the BOC voted 3-1 (Brown against, Conrad absent) to subdivide the Kratzer Farm. If you are new to this issue here is an overview.

Thoughts:

1. There is no reason to rush to sell any portion of the farm.  Working one time potential revenue into a budget calculation then seemingly counting on it…. is just wildly irresponsible. There is no guarantee it sells at all yet alone a reasonable price close to the estimate.  I think a high school personal financial management student would recognize that. This practice is amplified during a time when a property tax is on the table. How on Earth could anyone think relying on the one selling of assets is good long term financial planning? It’s akin to burying your head in the sand. Does nothing to address long term issues.

*Note right now, the property is generating revenue. The Parks board investigated this at their last meeting. The property is not costing us a dime. In fact you can say renting the house pays for a portion of maintenance on the rest of the property.

2. Solicitor Somach brought up an alternative option to advertise the house for sale before spending even more money on engineering. This way we can see if there even is a market for the house before we spend more money. We’ve already spent over 13,000 on engineering costs, appraisals ect. I thought this made sense. Why spend more money until we see if there is even a market?

3. Brian Higgins and I are both on record supporting waiting until the results of the parks plan before moving forward. This was the near unanimous recommendation from membership of not only the parks board but also the EAC and planning commission. Doug Brown is supportive of that. Ryan Conrad has been warm to the idea. So basically we have two lame ducks who are driving an unpopular decision. That is not right and is a blatant waste of money for no reason. They should understand that in a transition period you need to acknowledge a new board might go in a new direction.

Lastly, there was an agreement to wait which now seems to have just been tossed aside. This was the understanding of the Parks Board, planning commission and EAC. In fact the Parks board devoted a significant amount just one week ago working on studying the house. If they had known the board was going to plow ahead they wouldn’t have wasted their time or staff’s time.

Here is the letter the PR board sent. It contains an overview of some of the information they gathered about the house. They have done more public investigation of the pro’s and con’s of selling then I’ve seen in over a year from the BOC. That’s a problem. I attended budget workshops last year when this was discussed. I can sum it up in one sentence: “Shall we sell Kratzer? Yes, it’s a continuation of our policy.”  . . . . . 

 

BOC Agenda preview 10/3

Posted on by

FYI – This is a practice I started and will continue as a member of the BOC. With these previews while I may indicate a voting inclination, it in no way means my mind is made up on any issue. Back during a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner once spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong.

My hope is this opens the door for conversations before public meetings. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was people 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 and my thoughts on issues before they come to a vote  in front of the board. This is one mechanism to do that.

Executive session – Clerical union contract review – I believe Bruce Fosselman and Ryan Conrad (chair of budget and finance committee) are the designees to negotiate. I think this is a strength of Conrad’s and I’m happy he has this responsibility.

Hearings and Approvals

Shepherds Corner – Development project on the corner of Krocks and Hamilton Corridor. At this stage I would vote to approve this project. However, had I sat on the planning and zoning committee when this plan came in as a sketch at that point I would have encouraged the developer to consider swapping the storm water features to the front of the building and moving the parking to the rear.

If you ever drove past the medical office on Walnut St. in East Macungie near the Buckeye tavern it’s a similar look with attractive storm water features in the front. I think that a landscaped storm water basin with split rail fencing presents a very pleasant street scape. This would be something more in line with our vision for a “world class boulevard”. Something less “strippy”. To achieve this we need to encourage developers to pay attention to curb appeal. The time to do this is very early in the process.

One of the biggest things that makes a strip development a strip is locating the parking in the front so it becomes the dominant feature.  It is important to shield the parking from boulevard. Thats the difference between a “Boulevard” and Macarthur Rd. or any other strip. We have Commissioners who talk about the world class boulevard and that’s wonderful yet they keep approving strip (or strippy) projects. Shepherds Corner is not a terrible project. (I reserve that label for plan approvals like the “American Kitchens” approved plan) It could be alot better but at this point it is what it is. And that is what we need to shoot for design wise if we want to have a “World Class Boulevard” in our township. Main Street design. Not strip design with some bells and whistles.

Ideal form of Hamilton Boulevard Buildings. This emulates a classic Main St.

This would be the ideal form of commercial/office development on Hamilton Boulevard. I believe we need to start proposing a unified vision. One way to do this is to present photographs of desired “look” to developers early in the process. This would be a model I would encourage.

*Note this project is tied to (because of shared stormwater) Hamilton Crossings. It’s unlikely it would happen without Hamilton Crossings being built.

Plan approval for Millbrook farms – This is another project that has been in the “pipeline” for awhile and I would likely vote in support of. Millbrook farms is a great subdivision with a very active HOA who is currently working with the township to utilize tree-vitalize grants to enhance their public realm.

Engineering – Acceptance of roadways for Liquid Fuels Reimbursement.

What is the Liquid Fuels Tax 
A tax of 12 cents per gallon is imposed on all liquid fuels (primarily gasoline) used or sold and delivered in Pennsylvania. The tax is imposed on the ultimate consumer, but the distributor is liable for collecting and remitting the tax.

 

Portions of this tax are then distributed to municipalities. The amount we receive is based on miles of roadways and population. There is a very specific list of items the township can use this state money for.  Primarily it consists of repair and maintenance of roads.

Authorization to advertise Act 537 ordinance – See last months meeting agenda preview for an overview of Act 537.

Township Manager’s Report – Last meeting the board instructed the the manager to continue with the process to subdivide and sell the Kratzer farm house. As you might recall, I and others including the Parks board, EAC and Planning commission formally expressed concern with a previous plan to subdivide the house, barn and driveway. More information here. 

We were successful in convincing the board to explore the value of the access (driveway) and the barn for a potential future greenway trailhead. The discussion at the time was to hold off on any subdividing until the results of the parks and recreation comprehensive plan were completed and presented. At least that was mine and others understanding.

At some point the discussion shifted and the process moved forward with the house. At last weeks meeting I would have voted against an authorization to instruct the manager to move forward with an appraisal and I would have honored the previous discussions to stop the subdivision process entirely until the park plan addressed the issue.

General Admin – One item on the Gen Ad agenda is the creation of the TreeTenders AD-Hoc committee. I support this in lieu of a shadetree commission. I attended the tree-tender training and think it’s an excellent program.

 

Latest Mcall article on proposed Lower Macungie property tax

Posted on by

I am adapting this from a Facebook post I made this AM where I posted a link to the latest Mcall piece by Pat Lester. In it all seated Commissioners weigh in. (Pat by the way who does a great job of covering local Lower Macungie Issues)

I provided Pat a quote at his request for the article but it didn’t get included. Likely my fault. I was asked for 1 or 2 sentences and provided a paragraph. The short answer is ‘No’ I do not want a local property tax. I do not want ANY of my taxes to go up. No one who owns a home does.

The problem however is this issue deserves more thought then a boilerplate quote. It’s much more complicated due to unique circumstances here in LMT. I won’t be an elected official who waters down complicated issues to get a quote in the paper. Some issues lend themselves to that, some like this issue do not.

Below is the quote I provided. I’m unwilling to commit the township to another period of hyper growth to put off a property tax another 5 years. Not only will this hurt our quality of life, but one time windfall revenue associated with hyper growth does not make a sustainable financial policy. As the article outlines, we were able to eliminate the tax because of the large reserve fund that was the result of 40% growth over 2 decades. (Going from roughly 15,000 when eliminated to over 31,000 residents now)

Long term, sustainable low taxes are my goal. While I respect Commissioner Conrad’s opinion that taxes will inevitably be raised if we open the doors again, I respectfully disagree. We can have a stable low tax rate without fear of it rising. I don’t always see eye to eye with Ryan, but generally we’re in the same ballpark and he has been commenting about the subject on his social media and engaging residents which I always appreciate.

So how do we ensure that if we enact a tax we can keep it low? The answer is smart growth. Financial sustainability is precisely what smart growth is all about. Growing in a way where revenue exceeds liabilities and demonstrating this by conducting lifecycle cost benefit analysis of proposed zoning changes is critical. I have been consistently advocating for this for a little over a year.

This will be one of the first items I propose if elected in January. That any proposed up-zoning of open space or farmland be accompanied with a cost benefit analysis of the potential impacts. Remember, farmland and open space costs the taxpayers very little if anything in liabilities. It generates no traffic, it creates no crime, it puts no new students into our schools and it contributes positively to the tax base. We have no obligation to up-zone any property unless there is a financial benefit to the community.

Also of note I do echo Conrad’s call for the township manager to provide the BOC with a list of alternative tax/fee options to the proposed. 33 mill real estate tax. The First Class Township Code and the Local Tax Enabling Act provide several different tax/fee options that can be considered as alternatives to a real estate tax. These and all options should be explored.

The only option I personally will not support in any way shape or form is initiating another period of “hyper growth” through en masse zoning changes to artificially keep taxes low. That strategy is selling out the future. Relying on one time building permits, real estate transfer tax or the selling off of township assets does not make a sustainable or responsible fiscal policy. We’ve been playing with fire for a decade. It’s time to stop gambling and start planning. The fund balance policy was a fantastic start.

With smart growth yes, we can maintain a low sustainable tax rate. If we bury our heads in the sand and sell the township to the highest bidder for near term cash we will bury our future under a mountain of liabilities. Blindly up-zoning large swaths of agriculture protected land in the western portion of the township to industrial and commercial uses is doing just that. We cannot continue to swap short term gains for long term liabilities. The smart growth plan reinforces the need to encourage growth in locations where we get a return on investment since infrastructure will already be in place to handle impacts. Namely the Hamilton Corridor. Projects like Hamilton Crossings. (without the public funding aspect..)

Here was the quote I provided:

“The tax issue goes hand in hand with poor growth decisions. We’re now much closer to needing our own police force while our infrastructure obligations continue to grow. Over the years we’ve swapped near-term cash for long term obligations. This has hurt our quality of life and put us in an unsustainable financial position. On the horizon is a time-bomb of unfunded liabilities. No one wants to initiate a property tax but due to poor development decisions the luxury of having a choice may soon be taken away from us. If we don’t control growth now the tax we face now will be nothing compared to what we face in 10 years. “

Lower Macungie Township Budget Proposal and Managers Powerpoint

Posted on by

Each year the budget proposal is first prepared by staff under the direction of the Twp. manager. This years budget includes a request for a 0.33 mill property tax. This would be the townships first property tax in over a decade.

The .5 mill property tax was eliminated in 2003. – Mcall archive article

The property tax request and full budget will be reviewed over the next few months. There will be multiple opportunities for the public to weigh in BEFORE the BOC votes on the budget. This is the first step in a long process.

Below is the budget proposal cover letter and accompanying power point.

What’s next:

Over the next few months the seated Commissioners will debate the proposed budget. There will be a series of Budget Workshops (open to the public) where the budget will be vetted line by line. Big picture items such as the proposed property tax will also be discussed at length.

The current Commissioners will vote on the 2014 budget in December. (I will not be voting on this budget. New Commissioners take office on January 1st. However, I will be attending all budget workshops and will blog about key issues)

Township Managers – Budget Proposal Cover Letter (page 1)

Township Managers – Budget Proposal Cover Letter (page 2)

Township Managers Budget Proposal Powerpoint from 2nd Sept BOC Meeting.