BOC Agenda preview Oct. 20th 2016

Posted on by

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

Here is your agenda preview for the Thursday Oct. 20th township meeting. The BOC meetings are the formal business meetings of the elected Board of Commissioners.

Announcements and Presentations:
Donation Presentation from Lutron to Emergency Services – Presented by Andy Hines – THANK YOU! I wish more of our high impact commercial users would do the same.

HEARINGS & APPROVALS

Resolution 2016-23 – Land Development Approval for Signature Personal Care – The planning and zoning committee recommended approval at our last meeting. This is the old Lower Macungie Elementary School. It’s a proposal for a 1 story building that will house 80 memory care / personal care units. As a use it’s a good low intensity fit for the neighborhood. It’s also a decent design and the developer has worked with us on a number of design elements including addressing walkability issues offsite. A credit towards the recreation fee will be considered for off site walking improvements. This will result in a walking connection made from Spring Creek Rd. (existing trail adjacent to Rolling Meadows) to South Krocks Rd on both the North and South frontages of Lower Mac Rd. This is an important connection.

The only issue I have with this project was the lost opportunity. If this property must be developed this is a good fit. Problem is I don’t think it had to be. In fact I know it could have been prevented. Had the township known this property was for sale and available we would have strongly considered purchasing it. At least 4 Commissioners have expressed that point of view.

The price the district ended up selling the property for represents a deal in my opinion. We would have jumped all over it. This would have allowed the township to retain the playground as a public amenity and also to subdivide the school building and sell separately remaining intact. I think we could have gotten an addition public playground, preserved the school building and still found a low intensity user. There was zero communication from the district before state law required them to.

Unfortunately, because of this we never had the chance. While there were signs indicating (they are still there) that the millcreek district property was/is for sale there were none at any point in time on the elementary school. By the time the district was required to notify the township planning commission it’s intent to sell it was too late.
Too late for the township to have a conversation with the school board about purchase. In fact the planning commission came out with a letter opposing the sale in general. This is a summary. This is exceedingly unfortunate. 

Land Development and Lot Consolidation Approval for Spring Creek Properties Lot 9

This is one of the Jaindl settlement agreement warehouses. We are unfortunately bound by the agreements of the 2010 board here. The consolidated lot will be 75 acres. Proposed is a 875,000 SF facility with 170 dock doors.

The major concern I have with this project is preventing trucks from turning right off private Congdon Hill Rd. (the main entrance to multiple warehouses off Spring Creek Rd. into the Borough of Alburtis. I also have concerns with trucks using Mertztown road and Creamery Rd. west as shortcuts to avoid congestion on Rt. 222.

This is a spec building meaning we will know the user or truck routing until one is identified.

Related however, it was just announced recently that another warehouse off Congdon hill road will likely house Deka (East Penn properties) warehouse. See Morning Call article here. So the obvious concern is that trucks will use front street and state rd to get to the main topton manufacturing and related facilities. This being the last big superbox on the property, it’s our last crack at addressing global truck issues related. However, we are severely constrained by the 2010 settlement agreement. 

The Movie Tavern. Cleaning out the notebook.

Posted on by

Clearing out my notebook on the Movie Tavern (Trexler Business Center) – I hope this is helpful for folks to understand why I voted NO. The plan passed 3-2. This one was a long slog. It was unfortunate it turned out that way. It didn’t have to be but certain developer concerns about the impact fe were raised very late in the game. 

1.) First, I apologize I wasn’t able to blog more about this topic over the last few months. Problem was for the last few weeks of this issue we were under the implied threat of litigation. Unfortunately, at that point a blog meant to keep residents informed can be used against the township in a court. Once we have the threat or implication of legal action we lose some of our ability to talk freely about a subject. This is unfortunately reality. In cases of land development reviews words can be taken out of context, mischaracterized or misrepresented. I struggle with this. I’m often advised “not to blog so much”, but I fundamentally believe residents should know every piece of information I know. My blog let’s me clearly put my thoughts down “on paper” in writing. The free flow of information is critical to transparency.  Unless forced to I’m not inclined to ever compromise that. Hence clearing out the notebook now.

2.) I would have voted yes on the original resolution. The original resolution left a blank space for the amount of credits granted. During the course of consideration 3 credits were agreed upon by the planning and zoning committee and the township engineer and staff. These were negotiated during the course of public meetings. I felt they were fair and I felt they honored the intent of the traffic impact fee by addressing regional issues related to the project. The problem with the resolution presented to us the AM of the vote was that additional credits were granted. These were not subject to public discussion in a meaningful way.

3.) Credits, vs. contributions vs. impact fee monies. The impact fee – “Transportation impact fees are a funding mechanism permitted by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Fees can be assessed to new development in proportion to its impact on transportation networks—the traffic the development is expected to generate during peak commuter periods. Funds collected are used to improve roadways used by development-related traffic.” PennDOT impact fee guidebook.

That is the purpose. However, I believe the program the way it’s written has some severe flaws. In light of that I am OK with credits to appropriate off site improvements. Using the same definition of off site improvements as the impact fee program. And also gaining the same amount of monetary value as the impact fee program allows. No more, no less. This is very fair and very transparent.

Again, I had no problem with crediting or contributions in liu of impact fee. My problem is we gave additional credits beyond what was agreed upon during the course of public meetings. I also had issues with the credits themselves in that I feel strongly they don’t address issues that would have otherwise been addressed by developers at some point in the future.

4.) My structural problem with the last minute credits. The last minute credits were basically to fund a new driveway across the street (north side of the blvd.) that will connect Hamilton Blvd and Grange Rd. Now, there are benefits to this and that’s the reason why have it on the township official map. But the map gives us the tools to ensure this conversation happens at an appropriate time. That is in the future when it’s actually needed. (If and when the north side develops, remember the intent of the impact fee is not to address or otherwise induce future development). The problem here is this credit is unrelated to the Movie Tavern project. Further there is no timetable when it ever gets built. And it’s something we would likely secure anyhow based both on our ordinances, the official map and realities of any commercial project built on the north side of the boulevard. 

In my opinion, we gave away something that made no sense to do so at this time meaning we left money and value on the table that we should be using to fix existing issues. Not future issues related to more development. I actually believe the townships move last night will expedite and induce more “boxy” development on the north side since it will give future developers more public road frontage. I also question whether the township is obligating ourselves to essentially take ownership of what otherwise would and should be a private shopping center driveway on the north side. If this is the case it’s a strategic error.

5.) Procedural problems with the last minute credits. As mentioned above, there were a number of credits and contributions agreed upon in the course of public meetings. They were presented and vetted in public. They addressed the intent of the traffic impact fee ordinance. I had no problem with this. Issue was, that this still left an approximate 375,000 dollar hole. This hole was “plugged” apparently 24 hours before the final vote. I have an issue with that. So did my father Ronald R. Beitler. The two reasons above including both the structural and procedural issue with the “last minute” credit are why I voted NO on the resolution.

6.) The land development itself is good. I am 100% in favor of preservation and better managing growth. Problem here is this development is proposed in a location identified for growth. Other areas of the township not we are aggressively pursuing preservation strategy. And we’ve had successes. This was not a place that made financial or planning sense to do so.

I do wish this wasn’t another strip and pad project, but for what it is – much like Hamilton Crossings – it’s of a higher quality. I wanted to give specific credit to the Movie Tavern for working with us. They voluntarily upgraded many facets of the plan that will result in a better overall project. They also worked with us on a compromise regarding the tower height. Resident concerns were valid, and the Tavern addressed them. The developer also did work with us during land development although at times we had to push them a little harder. Everything was a negotiation. The Movie Tavern was easier to work with since they understood a better project was better for their business. It was less a negotiation and more working together to build something neat. They seemed to understand the vision we are trying to accomplish on the boulevard. That buy in was important.

7.) The Movie Tavern in and of itself was a good fit. While our job is not to pick winners and losers in terms of uses based on opinions. It is to vet projects based on objective criteria. In this case based on the objective criteria of traffic counts – the Movie Tavern was a much better fit than what otherwise could be built here. The reason is traffic counts generated are off peak. Nights and weekends. Again, the theater will not generate trips during AM or PM peak hours. This was a huge advantage to the township.

 

 

Lower Macungie Trick or Treat 2016

Posted on by

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-11-15-27-am

Please be safe!

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.

Scrutinize your local municipal budget.

Posted on by

Because you can. Because the higher you go up –  The tougher it becomes. The Federal budget? Forget about it. Typically well over 2000 pages. (Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is 1,296 pages) The State budget? Still, extremely hard. Even the next level up, Lehigh County – your head will spin trying to make sense of a budget that is 20x the size of even a very large municipality like ours is.

And this isn’t a knock on those who work with those budgets. (at least not always..) Its just a size and scale thing. I think we have a very transparent county government right now, however just the sheer size and scale makes it tougher for a resident to vet their budget. And generally, the higher up you go the more higher likelihood of shenanigans.

This makes at face value and in theory local municipalities the most responsive level of government. And it’s true here in Lower Mac. In a reasonable amount of time you can go to the township building ask for the budget binder and literally see exactly where every single dollar goes. I’d say a pretty clear understanding can be gained in an hours time.

Now the proposed 2017 Lower Mac budget is large. No doubt about it. Afterall, we are 32,000 residents and 24 square miles. We have 29 parks, a large community center, library, pool, 131 miles of roads and millions of dollars of equipment and other assets to maintain those roads, parks and facilities. Even still in about an hours time you can look at the budget and get a very clear picture where your money is being spent. We strive to make the budget process as clearly transparent and user friendly as possible.

This is the size of the 2017 proposed budget Commissioners rec'd last week. It's large but still manageable for the average resident to vet. That's the beauty of local government.

This is the size of the 2017 proposed budget Commissioners rec’d last week. It’s large but still manageable for the average resident to vet. That’s the beauty of local government.

You have 4 major opportunities to participate in the process over the next 2 months. All in the formative stages before the first public reading.

October 5, 2016 Board of Commissioners’ Public Workshop #1 @ 7 p.m. (Primarily for LMT Departments and Community Organizations to justify their yearly requests)

October 19, 2016 Board of Commissioners’ Public Workshop #2 @ 7 p.m.

November 2, 2016 Board of Commissioners’ Public Workshop #3 @ 7 p.m.

November 17, 2016 First Public Reading of Budget Public Advertising for Inspection and Ordinance

Nov. 21 – Dec. 15, 2016 Further Public Inspection period.

So take a look. Ask me questions. In fact. Grill us. That is how local government is supposed to work. It’s the way it works best and the way it’s designed. 

How many acres of warehouses does it take…

Posted on by

…to equal the local tax base and job creation benefit of 1 manufacturing facility? 

Here is the math.

 

Mack Trucks - Lots of employees per acre of land at excellent wages. Manageable impact (well worth it for the excellent paying jobs) and good local tax generation.

Mack Trucks – Lots of employees per acre of land at excellent wages. Manageable impact (well worth it for the excellent paying jobs) and good local tax generation.


MANUFACTURING
Mack Trucks consists of 922,950 SF of floor area on 147 acres. The facility generates exactly 9,000 dollars a year in municipal property taxes. The employee counts fluctuate yearly, but they average around 1,850 employees annually. This year Mack is on track to contribute around *84,000 dollars in local services tax receipts. On average 100 of those 1,850 employees live in the township so we collect another 7,000 dollars in **earned income tax.

Property Tax – 9,000
LST – 84,000
EIT – 7,000
$100,000 yearly Lower Mac tax benefit
1850 employees over 147 acres – 13 jobs per acre.

All together Mack Trucks injects 100,000 dollars annually into Lower Macungie Twp. directly through tax receipts. 

The question here is how many warehouses on how many acres of consumed land (in our case prime farmland) does it take to match that amount of tax base generation and jobs?

Low revenue per acre paired with costly liabilities. Not a winner for the local government.

Low revenue per acre and few employees paired with costly liabilities. Not a winner for the local government.

 

WAREHOUSES
The answer is more than 5 buildings totaling 2.5M + SF of floorspace eating up nearly 200 acres of former farmland. Total property tax receipts on 5 properties analyzed are $45,000. On average all 5 buildings together employ about 600 people. Problem is many are part time or otherwise do not qualify for the 12,000 a year threshold in earnings for the township to collect the LST. Employee turnover is also very high. So the total LST generation for these 5 buildings is roughly $26,000. Of those 600 employees only a small percentage, 34 live in the township. We collect about $3,000 dollars in EIT from them total.

Property Tax – 45,000
LST – 26,000
EIT – 3,000
$74,000 yearly township tax benefit
600 employees over 200 acres = 3 jobs per acre of land.

All together 5 warehouses analyzed which eat up nearly 200 acres of land and generate a grand total of $74,000 dollars. 35% less than Mack on 35% more land. 

Conclusion
5 warehouse facilities eat up about 35% more land (in Lower Mac’s case irreplaceable prime farmland) but in total generate about 35% less revenue.

Jobs? That’s 13 jobs per acre for Mack Trucks vs. 3 jobs per acre for the warehouses. Mack generates over 300% more jobs per acre than the warehouses.

This is of course only one half of the equation. The municipal liabilities which aren’t as easily quantified but verifiable are exponentially more impactful with the warehouses.

Now, Mack Trucks is a powerhouse. That’s readily acknowledged. But what about other manufacturing facilities in the township? The numbers remain staggering. Similar numbers for special effects producer Smooth on. 350% more jobs per acre than warehouses and 170% more tax revenue generation per acre. And smooth has so little impact on it’s neighbors that it’s located within a neighborhood. (I live next to the facility and it’s an excellent neighbor) It’s outstanding tax generation numbers are also a credit to the companies very high wages. We get the added benefit of a company mentality and philosophy that encourages employees to live near the facility. Oftentimes within walking distance.

How about Victaulic? Situated on just 10 acres it employs over 150 employees locally. Again, over 350% more jobs per acre than the warehouses. And this little powerhouse generates over 125% more revenue per acre.

 
*LST Persons working in the township are assessed $52 for local services. Those earning less than 12,000 per year are exempt. 

** EIT Collected from employees who reside in the township. 1/2 of 1% of earnings. 

*** Property Tax – Lower Mac has a .50 millage property tax. 

 

Gerrymandering discussion Aug. 26th

Posted on by

Along with term limits including eliminating public pensions for elected officials, and campaign finance reform, districting reform (that is eliminating gerrymandering) is one of what I consider to be the 3 most crucial reforms needed in the state. When politicians draw their own districts, they manipulate the process to protect incumbents and discourage competition. This is what happens in Pennsylvania now. Politicians choose voters instead of the other way around.

I believe this discussion will center around SB 484. It’s a bi-partisan bill that would address the problem. It’s currently co-sponsored by two Lehigh Valley State Senators. Pat Browne (R) and Lisa Boscola (D).

The following is an informational program to learn more about efforts to reform. League of woman voters programs are always excellent.

Gerrymandering: How to create fair legislative and congressional districts in Pennsylvania.

Where: Unitarian Universalist Church of the Lehigh Valley, 424 Center Street, Bethlehem http://www.uuclvpa.org/directions.php

What: The plan is to have a short introduction to Gerrymandering (15 – 20 minutes) followed by a panel discussion on how to create a fair redistricting process in Pennsylvania. The panel will be moderated by Janet Little, president of the Lehigh County League of Women Voters. The panel includes:

Barry Kauffman (PA Common Cause) 
Carol Kuniholm (PA League of Women Voters) 
Senator Lisa Boscola (D-PA Senatorial District 18)
Representative David Parker (R-PA Legislative District 115)


They will discuss new legislation to create an independent commission to draw the lines. The program is sponsored by the Social Action Committee of the UUCLV and the League of Women Voters of Lehigh County.

For more information, the contact person is
Tom Ulrich FFF Series Coordinator
Social Action Committee 
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Lehigh Valley
Tel.: 610-882-1136
Email: tomulrich41@gmail.com

Library expansion request.

Posted on by

Covered this in last weeks agenda preview but I felt this warranted it’s own post with some more information and specifics from the libraries presentation. The Morning Call did an article. Link here.

WHAT:
The township rec’d a request from the library to sponsor an application for a Keystone Grant that could provide funding up to $500,000 for expansion of our public library. The board agreed to the application with no strings attached at this point.

A study was conducted by Spillman-Farmer dated August 11, 2016 suggesting that the total cost of expansion would be $1,500,000. In addition to the construction costs, this included furnishings and design. I felt this number was very high. Folks must remember, the library already gets a substantial yearly allocation from the township.

JUSTIFICATION:
Since the Community Center/Library was built in 2000, the twp. has grown by 57.49% with a current population of over 31,000.

There were 10,196 children who attended 359 library programs in 2015. A 17% increase in the number of programs and a 5% increase in attendance over 2014. Adult programs numbered 155 with 1,780 attending – a 14% increase in the number of offerings and 54% increase in attendance.

Photos from the Library board presentation on the Grant Opportunity.

Photos from the Library board presentation on the Grant Opportunity.

Library program offerings for both children and adults are limited due now to lack of space. Children story times are held in an open area which staff feels disturbs patrons wishing for quiet time. The craft activity that accompanies each story time is held in a space that includes the desk of our Youth Services Librarian. Only 15 children can be accommodated at one sitting – thus causing waiting lists.

Adult programs are also held in an open area – children’s department. Programs prohibit families from browsing the children’s collection. They are limited as well with the number of people they can accommodate.

NUTS AND BOLTS:
The current space that the library occupies is 11,500 square feet. The library is asking for an additional 6,500 to provide for a separate children’s area and reconfigure current space into meeting rooms, study areas, quiet areas, additional office space and storage.

MY THOUGHTS:
This won’t be decided quickly and not without much opportunity for public input. This is the beginning of a multi month process. And securing the grant is a pre-requisite. At this point the township only authorized a grant application. We are not bound to anything. The township can consider budgeting some amount of money contingent on the grant.

There are basic questions I believe should be considered with the same criteria we’ve applied to other large discretionary capital requests. Here are the things I look for.

1.) Financial Commitment from a private entity. In this case Library fundraising. The library has committed 300,000 in privately raised funds. This is a good start. No match from the library would have been a non-starter. (This was the major problem with the 2014 proposed turf fields – no private money in the equation)

2.) Demonstrated support from the community. (largely in terms of above)

3.) Demonstrated need. The library began to make their case in a public presentation last Thursday.

4.) Expansion matches the demonstrated need. This is where I have the most questions. This is a 56% increase in size being justified by a 56% increase in population. Instead the expansion size should be based on actual space needs. But, also accounting for the fact we will continue to grow.

 

BOC Agenda preview Aug. 18th 2016

Posted on by

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

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

Announcements and Presentations:

Fields and Facilities study. LMYA

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the township has two goals here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 4 re-authorization

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

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

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

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

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

Planning & Zoning

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 8.14.21 AM

 

Meet your state police Community Service officers.

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 3.05.13 PM

 

Lower Mac BOC Agenda Preview Aug 4th

Posted on by

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

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

Announcements & Presentations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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