Roundabout FAQ’s

Posted on January 21, 2015 by admin

Roundabout FAQ’s in Lower Macungie:

Why are roundabouts being discussed now: Penndot policy is that at intersections where roundabouts could be built on state roads municipalities must now prove why a roundabout won’t work before constructing a traffic signal. The driver is safety. Roundabouts are statistically safer for both pedestrians and automobiles. There currently is no township plan for a roundabout. Just a discussion. The driver of the conversation at Willow and Sauerkraut is the planned Allen Organ supermarket and apartment complex which will add 200+ more units at Willow & Rt. 100. Developers are required to study all intersections that will be impacted by new projects. In this case Willow/Sauerkraut is one.

Federal Safety Statistics:
This is the key statistic: By converting from a signalized intersection to a roundabout, a location can experience a 78 percent reduction in severe (injury/fatal) crashes and a 48 percent reduction in overall crashes. (FHWA safe roads for safer future)

There are literally volumes of research on the internet. But the generally accepted bottoms lines are this:
1. Accidents are reduced over time
2. Catastrophic accidents (fatalities) for both pedestrians and automobiles are drastically reduced.
3. In some cases the frequency of “fender benders” increases immediately after construction. This is the “learning curve”. This is rare, but could happen. Critics often point to this (while ignoring all other data). Almost every time it levels off and decreases to below pre-roundabout levels.

The same is for pedestrians. Pedestrians and cyclists have far less risk navigating roundabouts vs. typical intersections primarily because of the lower speeds. A pedestrian has an 85% chance of being killed by a vehicle traveling at 35MPH. This drops to 15% when the vehicle is traveling at 20MPH. There are also less conflict points (see below) the crossing distance is shorter, and there is oftentimes a refuge spot in a splitter island.

Roundabouts are not traffic circles: Nor are they rotaries (New England) or neighborhood circles. Immediately as an almost knee jerk and hysteric reaction folks claim “Jersey is removing their roundabouts”. Not true. Jersey primarily has had traffic circles. These are not roundabouts. The two have almost nothing in common. At one point New Jersey had over 100 traffic circles. Many circles have been removed or slated to be. These are not roundabouts. According to the Penndot presentation last night NJ has 4 actual roundabouts and is considering more. In fact most states are.

Roundabouts are NOT Traffic circles. Traffic circles and Roundabouts are not the same thing. A traffic circle is not a Roundabout. 🙂

These are are examples of Traffic Circles:

Marlton Circle: Traffic Circles are massive high speed mechanisms employed on arterials or interchanges.

The former Brielle Circle Wall Township, New Jersey, Formally located where Route 34, Route 35, and Route 70 meet. Replaced in 2001 with an at-grade intersection with jughandles

New Jersey is removing circles not roundabouts. Here is the the former Brielle Circle Wall Township, New Jersey, Formally located where Route 34, Route 35, and Route 70 meet. Replaced in 2001 with an at-grade intersection with jughandles.

Below is a small single lane Roundabout: (This would likely be a proposal in Lower Mac) A roundabout is a compact one-way, circular intersection in which traffic flows counterclockwise around a center island. They DO NOT utilize signals in any way. (The Easton Traffic circle is not a roundabout, it is a large traffic circle with signals). The purpose of the design is to slow the speed of vehicles, keep traffic moving and drastically reduce conflict points. (see below)

Small low speed single lane roundabout in a suburban setting.

Roundabout not only statistically see crash data drop for cars, but also pedestrians.

Conflict points reduced drastically for automobiles: (FHWA)

One of the indisputable advantages of roundabouts is the drastic reduction in conflict points. Roundabouts have ZERO vehicle crossing conflict points as opposed to the 16 vehicle crossing conflict points at signalized intersection. This is where most of the safety benefits arise from.
Accidents are A. reduced in number over the long term and B. accidents that do happen are fender benders not fatalities.

But also for pedestrians: (FHWA)

Pedestrians are faced with simpler decisions at a time and they travel shorter distances.

COST: Roundabouts are the same cost to install and cheaper to operate long term. Frequently, roundabouts save money over the long term because they do not require signal equipment to install, power, and ongoing re-timing. Smaller roundabouts may require less right-of-way than traditional intersections and often less pavement is needed because additional pavement width is not needed for turn lanes. (FWHA) The advantages come long term, but the cost to install is roughly the same. This varies location to location according to PENNDOT.

Why do people oppose them? Public attitude: Roundabouts are almost always resisted. Oftentimes the resistance is almost hysteric. The public usually has an initial fear or negative opinion of roundabouts, but almost always after installation that opinion changes rapidly. This is after they’ve experienced the benefits.

Dark green is before. Light green is after. This is a compilation of before and after sentiment surveys conducted by the FHWA. People oppose roundabouts before they are installed, but after installation opinion rapidly shifts.

Please note: I tend to have a favorable opinion about roundabouts since I am a data driven person. Therefore I can’t ignore the safety benefits. But I am very interested in how Lower Mac residents feel. In roundabouts I see a way to statistically reduce accidents. I also love the notion of keeping traffic moving as opposed to ANOTHER traffic signal.

I rank my preference for Willow/Sauerkraut as follows:
1. *Status quo (4-way stop) 2. Roundabout. 3. Traffic signal.
*To change anything on a state road we need to meet warrants. This can only be determined after a study.

Municipal pensions face 7.7B in debt. Why is Lower Mac not on the list?

Posted on January 15, 2015 by admin

Recent headline in the Morning Call: Municipal pensions in Pennsylvania facing combined $7.7 billion debt

All surrounding municipalities are on the list with Macungie listed as ‘not distressed”, Alburtis, Upper Milford and Upper Macungie as “minimally Distressed” and Emmaus Borough as “moderately distressed”. The level of distress relates to debt vs. assets in municipal pension plans.

The reason Lower Macungie is not only un-ranked but also not on the list at all is because our pension plan is a defined contribution not a defined benefit plan. Therefore we do not have the actuarial issues of determining funding liabilities. In a defined contribution system participants gets back what was put in for them each year, plus, hopefully, some earnings rather than losses. The issues of “fully funding plans” don’t apply.

Basically, Twp. leaders decided back in the late 1970’s to head down the defined contribution plan route as a cheaper way to pay employee benefits. To put it mildly, we lucked out thanks to those old dutchies. 🙂

For now our situation is stable. One of the biggest ways this could someday change is if and when the township creates a local police force. For example: The pension plan Upper Macungie Township created when it formed its 22-member police force in 2012 is already carrying debt of about $2.2 million dollars putting it in the minimally distressed category.

As the Morning Call article states “Bills being circulated in Harrisburg, new municipal police, fire and nonuniform workers would have a corporate-like “cash-balance plan” that guarantees a smaller rate of return of 4 percent on contributions made by employees and employers.” If something like this passes before we ever have to change our police or fire protection arrangements it would benefit us immensely.

Defined Benefit Plan (distressed plans)

With a Defined Benefit employers pay a specific retirement benefit based on salary and years of service. The most common formula to calculate benefits is based on the employee’s earnings at the end of the worker’s career. The problem is the employer or government bears funding and investment risk. As is the case in many PA municipalities these can (most oftentimes) create crippling unfunded liabilities that get worse over time. This puts the whole system in jeopardy for newer employees.

Defined Contribution Plan (Lower Mac)

Defined Contribution (DB) plans provide a means for both employees and employers to contribute a steady stream of revenue into the participant’s retirement account.

Plans generally allow participant-directed investments and vest (or allow employees to receive benefits) sooner than DB plans. Benefits are also portable, which is becoming more important for workers in today’s evolving marketplace where the average worker may switch jobs and even careers multiple times over the course of a lifetime. While DB plans are managed collectively, employees have ownership of defined-contribution retirement plans and choice over their retirement investments. Since they are fully funded up front, this prevents pension obligations from sneaking up on future generations of taxpayers and allows for more stability in budgeting.

We can do better in Lower Macungie.

Posted on January 13, 2015 by admin

Every once and awhile I like to do a post primarily of photos demonstrating visually what I think represents more community serving and friendly development for Lower Mac. The type of development that we need more of. Alternatives to sprawling strip commercial. Specifically in the Villages of East Texas & Wescosville and along the Hamilton Corridor. I’m often critical of development projects and our current zoning ordinances that allow them. It’s only fair that I present what I think the alternative looks like.

We are making progress. We really are.
(For ex. our Planning Commission is now serious about walkability!)
But we can always do better. We have to.
#wecandobetter

Example 1: Alternatives to the strip
Here is an article about a neat neighborhood commercial project that might be built in Hellertown. Right out the gates this proposal is oriented in a more friendly fashion with parking to the side and rear. More attractive and in line with the desired character of Hellertown (Main St. in tone vs. STROAD in tone). This encourages walkability by framing the street, calming traffic by visually narrowing the roadway and since it’s an infill project it takes advantage of existing infrastructure representing great value. Today, our zoning code doesn’t allow this type of form.

The way this building is oriented to the street encourages a more cozy and attractive character. This would be a great alternative to buildng more strip malls on Hamilton Blvd.

Example 2: Even the big dogs are slowly getting it.
Here is a photo of a new prototype store built by Wal-Mart. Even the vaunted and much maligned big box behemoth is slowly but surely creating more community friendly store designs. They are doing this because they know that’s what the market will dictate moving forward. Most of the big box players now have better prototypes. As a community you just have to insist on quality! No excuses in a community so highly sought by retailers like East Penn is. Due to our highly coveted demographics.

An attractive alternative to the typical Wal-Mart superstore “box”.

Example 3: You can build beautiful new construction!

When artists draw idyllic classic representations of American Communities how come they never draw strip malls or STROAD commercial corridors? Key elements here include: PEOPLE centric design, multi modal, attractive and warm. This represents simplicity and timelessness. Something in this tone will remain viable in 50 years.

When you build neighborhood commercial the focus isn’t on buffering because the building fits into the fabric of the community. Strip malls must be buffered because they are inherently abrasive environments.

This corner development frames the public domain. Walkable. Pleasant. Comfortable. Plenty of parking. (It’s just in the rear so we don’t have to look at it!) You see residential homes in the background. And that’s ok. No need for buffers when development fits with the fabric of a neighborhood!

This example is just off a driveway to a shopping center. This is a bank. Just like we have many here. Except it’s clearly very different. (New construction Lancaster PA)

Just across the street from that bank in the same shopping center is this cafe with apartments above.

Example 4: Follow the private investments
Really, we don’t even have to look that far at all. As a local government unfortunately the focus recently has been on subsidizing a low value mega strip mall, (even though it’s a “nice” strip mall it’s still a strip mall) in other parts of the Village of Wescosville today we have private investments in high value neighborhood friendly commercial design in the form of adaptive reuse projects.

BEFORE

AFTER!

Adaptive reuse of classic old Village of Wescosville home stock. This is today after a very nice remodel. Now the home of two local businesses including Thrive Media.

Fantastic reuse of an old Church building. Now the home of Werner & Co. CPA’s and another small business Express sign outlet.

Strategy: Let’s focus township efforts on triage and sprawl repair!
Sadly, just across from the two really wonderful projects above we have the result of a very poorly thought out zoning ordinance and decisions made years ago. Unfortunately, folks working in these unique buildings look out their windows everyday at this…

This WaWa represents really awful design. It's the boilerplate generic WaWa. But making it worse is what everyone drives past is the side of the building. Recently the township had to make the store enclose dumpsters with that vinyl fence.

From inside Werner & Co beautiful re-purposed building their view is this…. Unfortunately our zoning code at the time allowed this replace an entire block of old home stock. Across the street the old home stock and block is now the home to 8 small businesses. This WaWa represents really awful neighborhood killing design. Not only is it the boilerplate generic WaWa. But making it worse is that everyone drives past the side of the building. There is no framing the public realm. No sidewalks. Up until very recently the view included dumpsters.

Important to note. The problem here isn’t that this is a convenience store. It’s the context, form and function. You can build almost any use save for the most auto dependent in a more community friendly way. Yet our zoning codes continue to fixate on separation of uses, when really we should concentrate more on the built form.

Our WAWA is what it is…. BUT what about a Private/Public partnership to improve it? How about erecting a new street wall that would welcome people to Lower Macungie like this? The township has already talked about a gateway. This would address some of the issues with the barren side wall and also make the whole more attractive and safer. We could if we had the wherewithal force WAWA to install sidewalks using the first class code. But I prefer a partnership.

An then there is this: It’s not just aesthetics, walkability, adjacent property values, quality of life and character. Above all else it boils down to dollars & Cents!
The financial argument for neighborhood commercial development is equally if not more powerful then any other argument.

$The Smart Math of Smart Growth. The building on the right is probably a little too tall for Hamilton Boulevard. But even a 3 story building (like the one currently being built at the old Pizza Hut) presents much better value and return for the community.$

The Smart Math of Smart Growth. The building on the right is probably just a little too tall for Hamilton Boulevard by 1 story. But even a 3 story building (like the one currently being built at the old Pizza Hut) presents a drastically better value and return long term for the community.

Already today we are seeing the folly of giving away 50% of incremental revenue for a strip mall. Last week there was a joint meeting between Upper Mac and Lower Mac focusing on the Rt. 222 corridor. The exercise took into account all the new development along Rt. 222 including Hamilton Crossings and created traffic models. Article: Computer predicts traffic woes in Lower Macungie.

Big picture improvements were outlined so that the townships can go hat in hand to the state in attempt to get on 20-30 year planning budgets. Reality is the township will somehow have to secure easily over *1 million dollars to build what basically amounts to as band-aid improvements to address currently failing levels of service. LOS that will get worse once new development ramps up. Again, this is just for band-aids. The end game of grade separation will cost us over 100 million dollars. So in essence at the same time we desperately need money to address issues caused by development, we’ve let developers off the hook for paying their fair share over the next 20 years.
*no cost estimates were given except 500,000 for one of the lanes. Representing 1 of a half dozen projects. I think my estimate is actually very conservative.

What’s done is done. But moving forward we HAVE TO concentrate on building more financially resilient land development patterns that utilize and capitalize on already existing infrastructure by returning higher value over time. The simple fact is land on the Hamilton Corridor should be looked at as a commodity. The School District moreso then anyone else should understand this. Instead of blindly chasing the band-aid they should be concerned with long term resiliency of the tax base. That’s what smart growth is. Seeking the highest return on our built environment.

Lastly, we need to STOP BUILDING NASTY STROADS!

The STROAD: A street/road hybrid. Does nothing good. Not quite a street (value capture) not quite a road. (move cars efficiently) Much like a futon is both a terrible sofa and terrible bed. Besides being a very dangerous environment they are enormously expensive to build and, ultimately, financially unproductive.

The nasty, ugly STROAD: A street/road hybrid. Does nothing good. If the purpose of a street is to capture value. And the purpose of a road is to move cars efficiently, then much like a futon is both a terrible sofa and terrible bed a STROAD is a bad street and also a bad road.
Besides being a very dangerous environment they are enormously expensive to build and, ultimately, financially unproductive.

Instead of STROADS build Boulevards!

As opposed to a STROAD a Boulevard is a more walkable, pleasant, attractive and higher value roadway.

Interested in these topics? Strongtowns posted 2 good blog posts this week.

How about good enough urbanism? #wecandobetter
The Strip Mall Death Spiral. Are we doubling down in Lower Macungie?

Thank you to Township Volunteers

Posted on January 9, 2015 by admin

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

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 January 8, 2015 by admin

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:

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.

Don’t forget you can put your Christmas trees out curbside

Posted on January 5, 2015 by admin

UPDATE 1/12

***Due to unforeseen circumstances there are delays in curbside Christmas tree collection this year. We appreciate your patience and expect final collection the week of January 19th. If you have any questions regarding collection of trash, recycling or Christmas trees, you are urged to call Waste Management at 800-869-5566 – be sure to mention that you are part of Lower Macungie’s Municipal collection. You can also drop off your trees at the township Yard Waste Recycling Center at 5536 Indian Creek Road. See winter hours below.

Christmas trees will be picked up by Waste Management on your normal trash collection day (by separate truck) during the weeks of January 5th and January 16th, 2015. Trees will not be accepted if they are in plastic bags, bound with twine and/or have any ornamentation on them, including lights. If you wish to remove your tree earlier, it can be taken to the Yard Waste Recycling Center at 5536 Indian Creek Road. The same rules regarding ornamentation apply.

YARD WASTE CENTER WINTER HOURS

Wild Cherry Lane Bridge Closure

Posted on December 23, 2014 by admin

WILD CHERRY LANE CLOSURE:

Over the weekend the contractor hired to do rehab work on the Wild Cherry Bridge discovered additional concerns with the beam structures that were not caught on previous inspections.

As a result additional beam replacement must be done.

It was agreed today by all parties that in the interest of Public Safety we will close the bridge immediately and until further notice. The contractor is on site and ready to start work after the Holidays as soon as a plan of action and design is coordinated between them and the township engineer.

The Homestead program is about the long term

Posted on December 19, 2014 by admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rt. 222 bypass: Road, Street or Stroad?

Posted on December 12, 2014 by admin

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

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

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

ROAD

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

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

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

STREET

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

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

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

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

STROAD

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

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

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do we overlook a golden opportunity?

Posted on December 10, 2014 by admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RonBeitler.com

A Blog about State & Local Government

Roundabout FAQ’s

Municipal pensions face 7.7B in debt. Why is Lower Mac not on the list?

Defined Benefit Plan (distressed plans)

Defined Contribution Plan (Lower Mac)

We can do better in Lower Macungie.

An then there is this: It’s not just aesthetics, walkability, adjacent property values, quality of life and character. Above all else it boils down to dollars & Cents!
The financial argument for neighborhood commercial development is equally if not more powerful then any other argument.

Thank you to Township Volunteers

Lower Macungie BOC Agenda Preview Jan 8th 2014

Don’t forget you can put your Christmas trees out curbside

Wild Cherry Lane Bridge Closure

The Homestead program is about the long term

Rt. 222 bypass: Road, Street or Stroad?

Why do we overlook a golden opportunity?

Defined Benefit Plan (distressed plans)

Defined Contribution Plan (Lower Mac)

An then there is this: It’s not just aesthetics, walkability, adjacent property values, quality of life and character. Above all else it boils down to dollars & Cents! The financial argument for neighborhood commercial development is equally if not more powerful then any other argument.

An then there is this: It’s not just aesthetics, walkability, adjacent property values, quality of life and character. Above all else it boils down to dollars & Cents!
The financial argument for neighborhood commercial development is equally if not more powerful then any other argument.