Category Archives: Lower Macungie Township

Lower Macungie Township is a township in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, in the United States. It is a suburb of Allentown, Pennsylvania, in the Lehigh Valley region of the state. As of the 2010 Census, the township had a population of 30,633.[1]
Lower Macungie is the fastest growing area of Pennsylvania in terms of total population growth[citation needed] and is undergoing rapid suburbanization. Some fast-growing areas of the township include Ancient Oaks, Brandywine Village, Brandywine Village 2, Hills at Lock Ridge, Millbrook Farms, and Shepherd Hills. Its villages include East Texas, Minesite, New Hensingersville (also in Berks County,) Weilersville, and Wescosville.
In November 2007, township voters elected to make Lower Macungie a first class township in 2008.

Thank you to Township Volunteers

Posted on by

Thank you to all township volunteers and welcome to our newest. Below is an overview of appointments from last night to various Boards & Commissions.

7235625-ball-pen-on-white-background-showing-thank-you
In a Commonwealth like Pennsylvania local Gov is designed to be hands on. Commissioners aren’t elected to go off to far away places like Harrisburg and DC to make decisions for us. Locally, every resident has the opportunity to get involved directly. Attend meetings, talk to elected officials who are also neighbors, circulate petitions etc. Can’t attend in person? Watch mtg video at YOUR convenience. Prefer to read? Review minutes online. Best of all you can volunteer like the folks below and get involved directly.

In Lower Mac we have a deep bench of qualified applicants. We have wait lists. Great problem to have. Many more qualified applicants than vacancies. Most recently to address this we’ve created additional ad-hoc positions on the Public safety Commission and are considering others. This to ensure that people who want to be involved have the opportunity.

Thank you to everyone who last night we appointed or re-appointed:

•Charles Sabo & Fred Zahradnik appointed to the Environmental Advisory Council. Sabo is an emergency medical technical for St. Luke’s. Zahradnik is owner of NetCrafter Solutions.

David Wieder reappointed to the Building Code Board of Appeals. Wieder is vice president of Burkholder’s HVAC.

•Ann Bartholomew reappointed to the township’s planning commission. Bartholomew is a retired author, writer and book designer and also an active member of the historical society. Ann quite literally wrote the history of the township. Purchase Ann’s history of Lower Macungie Township here.

•Keller Kline is an attorney and former township commissioner reappointed to the Zoning Hearing Board. Richard Ward also reappointed as an alternate. Ward is a senior vice president of Alliance Advisors LLC, also served on the Public Safety Commission.

•Four reappointed to the Public Safety Commission: Scott Forbes, the chairman; Michael Dattilio, vice chairman; Elizabeth Ackerman & Tony Alsleben. Forbes has background in telecommunications and business served on the board for five years. Dattilio is a Hellertown Borough police officer. Ackerman is a corporate sales manager at Bear Creek Mountain Resort. Asleben is an Allentown police officer. In December we also appointed to new members. Mark Spengler is a teacher at Emmaus High School and Dr. Janine Mathesz a fmr. assistant principle at EHS as an Ad-Hoc member.

Volunteer boards & Commissions include: (visit www.lowermac.com for more info)
The Audit Advisory Board
The Environmental Advisory Board
Emergency Management
Historical Society
Library Board
Planning Commission
Public Safety Commission
Vacancy Board
Parks and Recreation
Building Code Board
Zoning Hearing Board – What is a Zoning Hearing Board?
And of course everyone has the opportunity to RUN FOR OFFICE!

 

 

Lower Macungie BOC Agenda Preview Jan 8th 2014

Posted on by

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.

Hearings: NONE

Communication/Letters The agenda has 4 letters concerning Quarry Park. All expressing opposition or concern for various reasons. I have a feeling er are going to keep getting them.

One is from former Commissioner Roger Reis who I didn’t always agree with but I do on this issue. Former Commissioner Reis writes:

Bruce,

I know it’s late in the game but I would appreciate you informing the BOC that I am against spending over three million dollars for artificial turf. A property tax was enacted last year, which I did not support, because it seems there wherever more money becomes available, politicians immediately want to spend it. Three million dollars is almost 20% od the annual LMT budget. It is not a good investment.

Roger C. Reis

More letters again express the common theme that most residents aren’t against spending money on improving our parks. They are against spending money on synthetic turf. This is what I am hearing from most residents.

Here is a collection of research and answers to FAQ’s I’ve collected on a blog post.

Appointments to Boards & Commissions Lots of appointments on the agenda tonight. 1. Appoint Alan Fornwalt of Keystone Engineering as Township Engineer for 1 year.
I support this. Alan has big shoes to fill replacing Bill Erdman who was with the township for nearly 4 decades. While I do support further exploration of an *in-house township engineer and will continue to do so as long as we have Keystone I am very happy our man is Alan Fornwalt moving forward.

Overview of in house vs. outsourced engineer issue:
*Lower Macungie puts plan for in-house engineer on hold

We will also be appointing volunteers to the Building Code Appeal Board and the Public Safety Commission.(PSC) For the PSC I support re-appointing the incumbents and will recommend this as the committee chair.

For the Planning Commission in addition to supporting re-appointment for Ann Bartholomew I will be making a motion to also appoint an Ad-Hoc member from our list of applicants. Here is a memo I wrote to fellow Commissioners last night outlining my justification:

Commissioners,

I wanted to formally voice my support for Ann Bartholomew to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission. I will bring a copy of this memo tonight. 

Ann has for a long time been a very strong member and consistently brings up unique historical context to discussions. But her contributions are not limited to this alone. Jim’s original recommendation was a different direction but he has since decided to recommend Ann. I agree.

In addition to Ann I will also be recommending an Ad-Hoc member and suggesting Hillary Smith to full the role. Hillary has interviewed twice now for the position. She has a technical engineering background and brings a perspective missing on the board as the mother of school age children in the EPSD. Hillary is also in her mid 30’s. Current projects in township are and will continue to target “young professionals”. (East Texas mixed use, Grandview etc)

Currently that is a perspective missing on a board that has an increasingly high average age. Reality is often we have a senior dominated planning commission reviewing communities geared towards young professionals. This of course is a strength as we continue to review and look at policies relating to our current and future over 55 developments, but a weakness in terms of perspective relating to “young professionals”. This being a demographic we are actively seeking to attract and are competing with other municipalities who seek the same.

Based on a conversation with Chairman Keister I also worry about the possibility of losing multiple senior and experienced members of the Commission within a short time period. Since the Planning Commission is such a detail oriented and technical board I think this could hurt the dynamic. 

While it is true that our staff members very capably guide the planners in terms of carefully considering  the technical aspects of land developments and long term planning questions it’s my opinion that nothing compares to “time at the table”. Especially on such a technical board that tackles long term planning projects.

After conferring with Irv and others it is for these reasons and the fact that I also dislike turning away well qualified volunteers who have applied more than once that I believe a non-voting ad-hoc seat is very appropriate. This would be very similar to the Zoning Hearing Board and the Public Safety Commission. Both of which have alternates or Ad-Hoc members who sit at the table.

Facing the potential of losing multiple veteran members at once we have to ensure we foster a deep bench.

While of course this wouldn’t guarantee that the Ad-hoc member would be “in line” to be elevated to the board should a vacancy present itself it would be logical choice to consider. 

Ron Beitler

We will also be appointing members to the building code board of appeals, the EAC and the Zoning Hearing Board.

Budget Analysis:
Of interest in the year 2013 we collected:
660,000 in real estate transfer taxes (82.5% of forecasted)
4,951,713 in Earned Income Tax (99.0% of forecasted)
415,483 in Local Services Tax (118% of forecasted)
Totaling just over 6 million dollars. It looks like the deficiency in real estate Transfers was made up in LST. This translates to more workers in the township than anticipated and less real estate sales. But it looks like they were a wash.

Dept. Matters

Engineering
Planning
Manager
Year end report:
2014 Lower Macungie Managers Reportphoto
Solicitor
Cable Franchise Agreement

Committees

Public Safety
Budget & Finance (Conrad/Lancsek)
EAC recommendation for EIT referendum to fund open space: The first of two proposed funding mechanisms for open space preservation remains on the Budget and Finance agenda. I am unsure where this stands. It’s been in committee for a long time. The EAC has answered all proposed questions including drafting a lengthy white paper on the issue. Considering a referendum was one recommendation of the parks and recreation comprehensive plan.

Planning & Zoning (Lancsek/Beitler)
EAC recommendation for open space funding: This committee still has the EAC recommendation for Real Estate Transfer taxes associated with the Jaindl rezoning to be earmarked for Open Space preservation. I 100% support this and look forward to a vote by the full board on this. This is another open space preservation funding mechanism that has been brought forth.

I outline my support of this initiative here: Open Space funding proposal use Jaindl real estate transfer money

Public Safety (Beitler/Brown)

General Administration (Higgins/Brown)
Review of LMYA land use agreement. I suggest anyone with interest in this take review the attached draft and responses from LMYA regarding the current draft of the agreement. You can find it here in the agenda detail.

Public Works (Brown/Higgins)
Authorize study for Brookside Rd. signalization project. I have alot of thoughts on this. And I am hoping to be able to do a second blog post just on it. Basically we are choosing between moving forward a traffic signal on Indian Creek and Brookside (relatively inexpensive and already warranted and on Act 209 plan) or making improvements to the existing signal at East Texas & Brookside. (Very high price tag) If this recommendation is putting a “train on the tracks” so to speak or making this a decision to move forward one or the other I do not support it. If it just to gather more information before making a decision at a later point then I am in favor. I would like to see numbers and more information/suggestions from our engineer but at this time I favor moving forward Indian Creek signal before East Texas and Brookside. But am interested to hear rationalization for emphasis on Brookside and East Texas. They both need to be addressed but as a matter of priority I place emphasis on Indian Creek at this time since it’s closer to “shovel ready” and can be funded from additional sources. (Development)

Authorize KCE to perform survey/plan for Hamilton Boulevard bike paths: I support this. Study will allow us to “piggy back” off a future penndot resurfacing project therefore saving substantial amounts of money. The bike lanes are a recommendation of the Hamilton Boulevard corridor study. It’s one of many but represents an incremental step forward to carrying out the general theme of making our commercial corridor less like Macarther Rd. and more like a traditional Main St.

Recommendation for a Dog Park location – Basically the Parks and Recreation board has identified it’s preference for the townships first dog park. A dog park has been eluded to but is not on the official 2015 budget. I agree with the Parks board recommendation that the priority should be Camp Olympic as the location of the townships first dog park. They indicate they feel Camp Olympic should be the location of a second someday. I also agree with that.

 

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.

 

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. 

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 11/20

Posted on by

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.

Hearings:
Plan approval for Eastern Industries: This is a lot consolidation and minor subdivision plan. The property is located on Hamilton Boulevard and Schantz Rd. This parcel is zoned Commercial and it’s likely we will see a large shopping center land development proposal in the next 2 years. The subdivision and lot consolidation is the first step. 

Communication/Letters
The agenda has 9 letters concerning Quarry Park. All expressing opposition or concern for various reasons.

Appointments to Boards & Commissions
I will be motioning (as chair of public safety committee) to appoint Mark Spengler to a vacant position on the Public Safety Commission (PSC) and additionally to appoint Dr. Janine Mathesz as an Ad-hoc (non voting member) Both these folks were the unanimous recommendations of the PSC.

The reason the PSC recommended an ad-hoc is that this cycle we had an exceptionally deep pool of qualified candidates. 9 applications to be exact. Any one of the people would have made excellent members. The decision was made that although we are limited in number of voting members we can appoint at this time we can appoint non-voting members. These people sit at the table and can offer feedback and participate in discussions.

The amount of well qualified residents we have who apply to volunteer positions is a credit to the township.

Dept. Matters

Planning
Planning Commission for Recommendation for action on Smart Growth plan. 

Below is the letter. I will write about my thoughts on this issue next week.photo (7)photo (9)

Manager
Presentation of 2015 Budget & Authorization to advertise ordinance.
Here is the process moving forward.

We completed 3 budget workshops where the budget was examined in terms of departments and grants. The 3rd workshop focused on Quarry Park. At that workshop “consensus” was reached to keep the line item in the budget. To translate consensus this means each commissioner had the opportunity to sum up there feelings on the subject. Commissioner Brown and myself expressed concerns. Lancsek, Conrad and Higgins are in favor.

Moving forward at tonight’s meeting the board will consider advertising the budget. The last step is formal consideration and adoption which occurs at the last meeting of year Dec. 18th. Both tonight and that final meeting present an opportunity for residents to weigh in.

Committees

The Budget & Finance committee will meet today at 6:15.
Approval of Budget transfer
Basically this resolution accounts for various revenues and expenditures from 2014 that either exceeded or fell below budgeted amounts. This resolution reconciles that.

This includes:
Additional 7,000 in revenue from the decision to keep the Kratzer Farm house and continue renting.
Additional 6,500 in electrical permits above forecasted amount.
42,500 in insurance reimbursements

On other end the director of finance has determined that the township will require an additional 9,408 to pay for Volunteer firefighters relief, 37,000 in workers compensation and 12,000 for health insurance.

Planning & Zoning

EAC recommendation for earmarking Jaindl real estate windfall for open space.

I cover this issue here. I 100% support this and outline reasoning here.

Gen Ad:

Review of LMYA land use agreement. I have reviewed the draft agreement but I am looking for some context tonight. The issue will be considered at the 6:15 general administration committee meeting.

Related articles across the web

GUEST BLOG – Why are people talking about walking when I just want to relax a little?

Posted on by

Walking:

It is about increasing our exercise level but walking is a lot more important to our lives than just exercise!

It is about getting to know more of our neighbors, making friends and feeling more connected to our neighborhoods.

It is about safer neighborhoods because people out walking know more of their neighbors and are outside in their neighborhood seeing more of what is going on. Vandals, thieves and robbers avoid places where people are outside possibly seeing and/or preventing their acts.

It about being known at a local café, deli (like Brookside deli centrally located to 1000’s of township residents!) or coffee shop because you get your coffee and newspaper or lunch and snacks there from time to time. 

It is about supporting local businesses so they will succeed, offer better services and attract other services we want in our community.

It is having some quiet time in our lives while walking to allow us to think a little.

It is about making walking more convenient to reduce a few car trips.

It is about making Lower Macungie a more attractive place to live which can improve property resale values!

And ultimately it is about each of us living a longer life retaining more capabilities as we age.  It is about avoiding diseases that come from sedentary lifestyles.

What is worse than living to an old age but in such poor health we cannot enjoy our later years on this earth? See this very interesting article “Top 10 health benefits of walking every day” from Tesco, one of the world’s largest retailers with over 500,000 employees in 12 countries.

To get these benefits, Lower Macungie needs more walkways connecting us our residences to services we want and need.  Join this effort by signing up at our web site below and tell us what you think.

Jim Palmquist Volunteer Chairman
Lower Macungie Township Walkways
See our web site at https://sites.google.com/site/lmtwalkways/
jim.palmquist01@gmail.com

Leaf collection schedule

Posted on by

Barring complications with weather, equipment or emergencies, Lower Macungie leaf collection will begin October 20th and go through until November 28th. Unfortunately, the township doesn’t publish the order of neighborhoods and precise time and dates.

Here are some FYI’s.

  • Leaves must be raked to the edge of the road into long narrow rows (windrows) not more than 18 inches into the road.
  • 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.
  • *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.

leaf

 

Lower Macungie Halloween Trick or Treat Schedule.
Next budget meeting – Oct 29th

Related articles across the web

     

    The street light fee.

    Posted on by

    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

    Posted on by

    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.