I wanted to do a followup. Even though the controllers primary role (when it’s done correctly imo) is that of a non-partisan fiscal watchdog, occasionally the Controller has a hand in policy decisions. As I mentioned in my previous post in Lehigh County oftentimes this occurs in matters relating to county employee retirement policy. This because the Controller serves as voting member and secretary of the retirement board.
Recently the board made a decision to change the 1/60th tier retirement plan for current employees. The tiers are described in Act 96 relating to the County Pension Law of 1971.
Early last year County Retirement Board chose to change the tier for new employees starting next year for those hired after December 31st 2015. The Retirement Board voted unanimously to adopt a second retirement tier of 1/70. The board includes current Controller Glenn Eckhart.
What this change does is reduce the county portion of the a retiree benefit by 14% which in turn will save millions of dollars for county tax payers moving forward. Note: The change will only effect new employees hired after December 31st 2014 and current employees by law will continue to have the benefits of the 1/60 plan.
The difference between 1/60 and 1/70 is basically at 1/60 a person one would have to work 30 years to get half of their final three year average salary a year. 1/70 means they would have to work 35 years.
Two reasons for the change:
First it takes into account that since the lifetime medical benefit was stopped in 1988 Lehigh County employees now work longer for the County. This is mainly because of medical benefits. Additionally based on the latest mortality table change county employees are living much longer (common problem in many retirement systems) This of course means they work longer. So basically a county employee will end up with somewhere near the current level of benefits but at a significantly reduced cost to the County moving forward.
Again and very important this does not affect current employees. Tiering benefits is an important reform that institutions can enact to make sure we play fair with current employees but to address fundamental fiscal issues moving forward. In the end this change is important since it reduce the County obligations while still continuing to provide a very fair benefit to our invaluable County retirees who are our backbone. This represented great leadership from Controller Eckhart.
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.
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)
Synthetic 6.50-11.00 per sq ft. according to Penn State. (need proposal specific information)
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.
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.
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
The 2014 Lower Macungie Fire Department Santa Run routes can now be found on the website: www.firestation30.org.
The 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.
I am not against spending money to improve our community on items identified through community planning projects. I am against spending money in a rushed an inefficient fashion. This is especially true when a place is faced with a one time windfall of money.
At the local level we need to change the conversation. That is where it all begins.
Far too often we skip the step on the left leaping to the step on the right.
Every four years those of us in Lehigh county vote for the row offices. By and large, folks have no idea what these offices are or what the people in them do. I’m including myself here. At least up until a couple years ago. Link to Controllers 2013 report.
In Lehigh County one of those elected “row offices” is the County Controller. Next year it’s one of the positions that will be up for election. Currently the office is held by Glenn Eckhart. In Lehigh County the position is paid. In the past there has been discussion on whether the row offices in general should be elected or appointed. The job description is defined by the County Charter. Today the controllers office has 6 employees ranging from clerks to accountants.
According to the LC government website the Controllers duties include:
Examine the propriety of internal control
Assess compliance with statutory requirements
Evaluate operating procedures
Audit the accuracy and completeness of records and files pertaining to the receipt and disbursement of County funds by all officers, agents, and employees of the County
To sum this up the controller is basically an elected working manager for the county’s accounting dept. He/she is the elected fiscal watchdog of the County. The office conducts assessments of management performance and program results of county departments and agencies to evaluate efficiency and use of taxpayer funds. To sum this up the controller is responsible for delivering a yearly report to the Board of Commissioners.
Although controller candidates usually run based on party affiliation they do their job best when they operate from a political neutral standpoint. Beyond the watchdog role in Lehigh County the controller only has one responsibility that directly has to do with policy. That is the controllers seat as secretary (and voting member) of the retirement board. It’s basically the controllers one direct influence on policy decisions but it’s a pretty important one in relation to the County’s long term finances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve been critical of the Quarry Park synthetic field proposal. More so than any one critique of the actual plan for me it’s more about how I think local gov’t should spend taxpayer money on park improvements. Although I have said that for me synthetic fields are very far down the list of my park priorities.
With the Quarry synthetic fields we have a proposal that materialized seemingly out of nowhere as a 3.3 million line item. As it stands now looks like this will be approved with Commissioners Lancsek, Conrad & Higgins supporting. Myself & Doug Brown have concerns.
As an alternative to that type of windfall reaction budgeting (in other words how quickly can we spend “found money”) is the way we purchased and incrementally developed the entire 120 acre Camp Olympic based on a master plan and funded through grants, public private partnerships, volunteers and incremental funding. Contrasting these two projects shows two very different philosophies of how you plan and fund major park improvements.
Camp Olympic:
Since purchase of the 120 acre park and subsequent adoption of a master plan over 4 years we’ve incrementally secured funding for improvements. Much of that in the form of grants. Each year one or more components were addressed. Over time some aspects of the plan were scrapped. Others added as we tweaked and adjusted based on feedback. Many improvements were considered and prioritized over time by our volunteer parks and recreation board.
First we upgraded the access driveway and bathrooms taking care of basic infrastructure needed to support more intense uses.
Next, we sold auxiliary buildings that didn’t fit into long term plans. Then through a private/public partnership via a generous donation from Bear Creek Mountain Resort we began designing a disc golf course. Construction will begin next year. Clearing of the course will be done by volunteers through the Lehigh Valley Disc Golf Club working with our public works dept.
Camp Olympic disc golf course is the result of a volunteer group spearheading the effort. Bear Creek Mountain Resort donated the baskets.
Last 2 years our volunteer EAC has spearheaded tree plantings funded by grants reinforcing the parks overall theme as a conservation park. CO offers some of the best publicly accessible fishing spots in the township.
The park is now interconnected with adjacent homes through the volunteer efforts of an Eagle Scout who constructed a trail connection as an Eagle Scout project.
Over time we’ve secured grant monies for an eco park and BMX pump park. (Both coming next year!) We designated an area for community gardens. This past year rented 40 plots out to residents. Finishing the year we’ll use green futures funds to refurbish pavilions, the bridge and barn and access to the upper facility will be improved with a new loop road.
In the future as we continue to carry out the parks and rec comp plan the park may be a location for a potential dog park.
Additional adjacent land could be acquired in the future as well. This land is identified by the CO master plan and could be used as active parkland with the potential for Soccer or multi use fields with the added benefits of additional parking, another trailhead and access off of Lower Macungie Rd.
In every measurable way, Olympic has been a prime example of how you plan, develop and fund a 120 acre park. The multiple facets of the park serve many varied interests and are the results of many stakeholders working together for years. by incrementally executing the plan staff was able to identify varied sources of funding and support.
Statewide Tom Wolf won handedly. This was expected. Here in Lower Macungie however, Tom Corbett squeezed out more votes with high turnout at all polls edging out Wolf 52%-48%. With just under 10,000 votes cast Corbett won 9 out of 10 voting precincts in Lower Mac. The only one edging out for Tom Wolf was LMT 6 representing areas south of Rt. 100 and including the Hills at Lockridge. The biggest win for Corbett was LMT 8.
In the other contested race in the township for State Senator across the 16th district Sen. Pat Browne won easily 62% to 38%. The 16th is very diverse including a large part of the City of Allentown, Upper Macungie, Lower Macungie, Macungie, Alburtis and up into rural areas of NW Lehigh. Here in Lower Mac the moderate Republican had one of his best showings winning with nearly 70% of the total vote.
What’s the takeaway? Lower Macungie remains very Republican but tends to prefer moderates. The State Senate race demonstrated that township Democrat voters are willing to support a moderate Republican who is strong on education and growth. (I spent alot of my time talking to voters at LMT 1 about Browne’s NIZ) For example this is most clear in LMT 6 the only precinct Wolf (D) won but where Sen. Browne (R) still won with over 60% of the vote. In this precinct many who voted for Wolf split their ballot and also voted for Browne.
I think that this reflects voters in LMT by and large do not just pull levers based on party but rather look closely at candidates. That is a very good thing. We have in both parties sophisticated high information voters.
My thoughts working a poll:
I worked LMT 1 for Sen. Browne for about 8 hours one that went 70% in favor of him.
The weather was awesome so many people wanted to stop and chat. Not many wanted to talk about state issues. Most were well informed and asked questions about local. This is very nice to see.
One takeaway is people still want to talk about Hamilton Crossings. Opinions are wide ranging on the merits of the actual center. Many are excited for it while others are nervous about it specifically traffic issues. This makes sense since district 1 is closest to the center. Most are still confused why we authorized a TIF with an opinion that the center would have still come without it. I think this represents very high information voters who really took time to understand the issue.
No surprise also lots of questions about Quarry Park which has gotten some newspaper coverage. The comments largely mirrored those of the residents who made public comment at the last budget workshop. Most aren’t against spending money on parks but question the value of synthetic fields vs. other higher priorities. Fair questions.
Clearly, LMT residents are very plugged in to local issues. This is not the norm and a reflection on our informed and engaged residents.
Lastly, and as always HUGE thanks to poll workers! These volunteers are amazing and are a huge part of our democracy. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!
