A way to reduce primary residence taxes. Homestead exception.

Posted on by

Last weekend I blogged about the reasons Lower Macungie was forced to address a budget shortfall this past December. This week I am going to write a little bit about one mechanism I proposed as a candidate and formally in January we can employ to address this issue moving forward.

First I wanted to talk a little about a barrier that prohibits a place like Lower Macungie to deal with the impacts of sprawling commercial and Industrial growth. An issue that will further compound moving forward.

Reality is different land uses have different impacts and liabilities associated. Unfortunately, in PA we have a uniformity clause. Some states do, some don’t. Those that do have varied interpretations. As a consequence of PA’s strict interpretation, residential and commercial property cannot be treated differently for purposes of taxing absent specific provisions providing for exceptions. This is problematic because it prohibits localities to assess taxes based on new impact created. This issue is amplified in a township with a large inventory of distribution warehouses that are already and will continue to create costly liabilities and may someday be the driving force leading us to a local police force or 3rd fire station.

How does this fit into the smart growth philosophy I  subscribe to?

I believe greenfield development should pay it’s own way. We must be vigilant against direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies for land use patterns that fail to generate the revenue needed to mitigate new liabilities. Downstream impacts should be also accounted for beyond the 1st lifecycle. Oftentimes as political “feathers in a cap” localities negotiate one time windfalls of up front improvements. Unfortunately, rarely is the math done to see if new revenues are enough to maintain new infrastructure over multiple life-cycles. This is shortsighted.

The solution? A local homestead/farmstead exemption. You may already be familiar with this via state and school district programs. Local government can also take advantage of this program.

A local homestead/farmstead exemption is one provisional exception to the uniformity rule. The program is a way to target property tax relief for primary residences and farmland.  By enacting a homestead exclusion program the township can allow reductions in the assessed value of a primary residences or farmland property. This reduces the local property tax burden on these types properties. The homestead exclusion provides a tax reduction to all eligible properties in the taxing jurisdiction. Most importantly this applies to all primary owner occupied residences including, condominiums, single family homes.

There are 7 municipalities in Montgomery County who utilize this program on the local level. One example is Upper Gwynedd. An exclusion allows for real property tax relief of up to one half of the median assessed value of homesteads in the taxing jurisdiction. For example:

  • Under LMT’s current .33 mil property tax if you own a home at the township average of around 250,000 dollars your tax liability is 82.50. (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 41.25.
  • Meantime Commercial properties such as a distribution warehouses valued at 24,000,000 pays the full assessed value at .33 mil which would be 7,900.00 dollars.

It’s reality that certain types of land uses like strip malls and distribution warehouses hurt quality of life and command the most resources. This is exacerbated when they are located on sprawling former agriculture fringe parcels such as the Jaindl Spring Creek Property which will unfortunately require bran new roads, infrastructure and improvements. Even portions initially funded by the school district and developer will have to be maintained in perpetuity by the township representing an ongoing liability. To me it’s a matter of fairness. Land uses that cause impacts are the ones that should pay for the impacts.

I have asked the Board of Commissioners to consider a homestead exclusion program as one way to reduce the tax burden for primary residences and farmland within the township. This would also allow us to right size taxes on commercial and industrial entities to make sure they are “paying there own way” so that residents aren’t forced to indirectly subsidize them.

The Quiet Boom and Bust of PA Townships

Posted on by

The following appeared in an op-ed this AM in The Morning Call. I wanted to re-post as it succinctly sums up the reality Lower Macungie recently began to face with a tax increase in response to a budget deficit. I’m hoping we continue serious discussions about how got to this point and what we can do to keep taxes sustainably low over the long run proactively. The alternative is reacting to shortfalls and never addressing underlying issues.

To do this it’s important we understand how we got to where we are. This post is a preface to a post I’m doing later on in the week where I’ll outline some items I think are a part of the solution. This post deals with how we got to where we are. 

By Gerald E. Cross – Pennsylvania Economy League.

Since the 1970s, Pennsylvania’s cities have grabbed headlines as they sank into a financial morass while the state’s townships quietly prospered.

But recent data indicates that the once booming townships – where almost half of state residents live – are also seeing troubling signs including rising service costs and tax revenue that is either declining or flattening.

The challenge for townships may soon be the same issue facing distressed cities: how to provide quality services at a price that taxpayers can afford. By recognizing that challenge now, townships can begin to implement measures to avoid severe financial problems in the future.

Pennsylvania Economy League research clearly shows the explosion of tax revenue collected by townships beginning in the 1970s as residents fled the cities and took their wealth to townships.

For well over 30 years, Pennsylvania’s third-class cities experienced an exodus that dropped population by almost 20 percent. In contrast, population grew by almost 50 percent in second class townships, where residents moved to take advantage of new housing developments.

As people left the cities, income from taxes began to decline. Meanwhile, townships were increasingly able to capture additional revenue as both population and the earnings of that population expanded.

Real estate tax collection and real estate transfer taxes in townships jumped from the development boom. Officials in these communities had the advantage of revenue increases that were the result of natural growth rather than a politically sensitive property tax hike.

In addition, escalating earned income tax revenue contributed an increasingly larger amount to township budgets so there was less need to rely on property taxes, in contrast to cities, where property taxes are the dominate source of tax dollars.

Cities not only lost earned income taxes from those who left – many of whom were higher income residents – they also saw declining revenues as the remaining population aged, retired and no longer had to pay earned income taxes.

Meanwhile, as populations moved from urban areas, the taxable property values in cities did not increase at the same rate as the townships, and in some cases decreased. Cities were also hurt by the lack of readily developable land that limited easy expansion of the property tax base. The result was a decline in property tax dollars. Revenue sources are not the only difference between cities and townships. Cities spend the bulk of their money on public safety costs including police and fire protection. In some cities, total tax revenue alone has failed to keep pace with the cost of police and fire expenses. 
Townships spend more of their money on roads and public works. Still, township spending on general administration and police has increased, indicating possible problems down the road if revenues stagnate.

The trend can already be seen. Earned income tax in townships peaked just prior to the 2008 economic crash and is now either declining or leveling off. Real estate transfer revenue crested in 2005 and 2006. Townships that heavily relied on those tax sources to increase services and avoid a property tax hike may now have to look to other revenues.

To meet the challenge of sustaining public services, townships should explore more regional options to both provide and pay for them. By recognizing the fiscal trends, townships can work now to implement corrective actions in an attempt to avoid the dire financial predicament currently faced by Pennsylvania’s cities.

 

The above scenario has played out in Lower Macungie. The past 20 years we’ve artificially kept taxes low through hyper growth. This year for the first time we faced our new reality of a capital budget deficit and spent reserves. The simple truth is we’re slowly but surely running out of space to plow and we no longer can rely on the windfall one time revenue of growth.

For decades we lived in a fantasy land of a bloated rainy day fund and one time windfalls. Fast forward to today: The one time revenues we’ve relied upon are dried up. We’ve peaked on the EIT front. Real estate transfer will see a small increase as the economy picks up but never will we again see the windfalls of the 90’s. We’ve got the 10,000 lb gorilla of police coverage. Whether 5 or 10 years from now someday we’ll have to address it. Our “rainy day fund” is now drawn down to near minimum acceptable levels. Developers who installed up front infrastructure have long since left town and it’s up to us to fund continuing maintenance and future improvements.

 

Add to this market factors. We simply aren’t currently positioned to compete for young professionals since they want compact walkable communities. The senior market is shrinking and we have a bloated inventory with more on the way.

 

We’re clearly at a crossroads and faced with a choice. Choice 1 is: Bury our heads in the sand. Shoehorn the last open space parcels in the township and continue to chase ratables, developer contributions and one time windfalls. Which in this new housing market equals low quality apartment complexes. But in the end it’s simply delaying and compounding the inevitable while simultaneously selling our quality of life down the flooding creek.
Choice 2 is:  Continue the tough conversations now and get creative. Think outside the box and figure out how we move this township forward delivering the services residents demand with a stable and predictable LOW tax rate.
This is now beyond quality of life concerns. This is about financial solvency moving forward. This is a preface to a blog I’ll write later on this week. I have proposed one possible solution that I’ll outline Thursday. Remember there is a no magic bullet but I think it can be a piece of the puzzle. Stay tuned.

Related articles across the web

LVEDC calls for 1 cent Lehigh Valley Sales Tax.

Posted on by

Lots of reaction on social media this morning to this Mcall story posted last night. Here are some initial thoughts and questions.

You can read the report in it’s entirety here. The LVEDC paid around 100k to the Georgia firm  “Garner Economics” for the report.

LVEDC Website

First what made the headlines is the report high priority recommendation for a 1 cent sales tax which would generate 33 million a year. LVEDC’s current budget is 2 million. Knee jerk reaction is that this proposed tax increase would create a bloated slush fund for a nebulous board with unelected leadership lacking checks and balances. There were some recent reorganizations of leadership and structure of LVEDC in 2013 and I’d like to learn more about them. But from what I understand decisions in the past were made in private with a public component that was understood to be nothing more then a rubber stamp.

Beyond the big picture issue I took some time reading about what exactly the report outlines be done with 33 million. Some of it is good.

For example, regionalization studies. PA has 2500 individual municipalities and 600 school districts. No other state comes remotely close. This is a big reason why we face some of the statewide problems we do. Here is what the report says:

The Lehigh Valley alone is comprised of two counties and 62 municipalities. The scale of perceived—and, as noted by the taxpayer (businesses interviewed), real—inefficiencies in providing community services is significant. Oftentimes, to a non-resident, there is no separation of lines when traveling from one municipality to another.

No, I am not in favor of forcing individual muni’s to give up local control. As a bottom up government proponent I believe local gov’t to be the most efficient taxing body. Locally a resident can account for every dollar brought in and every dollar spent. A local dollar goes much further then sending your dollar to Harrisburg or Washington to be re-distributed through a broken system. That being said I agree we should conduct studies to identify where compelling cases for consolidation are. Then, if muni’s willingly see the economic and fiscal benefits (in some cases would be a no-brainer) we should make it easy to re-organize.

It’s my understanding Alburtis at one time initiated a study of this subject on it’s own. Remember, Alburtis raised taxes again this year. Macungie raised taxes again this year. Small borough’s often find themselves in tight fiscal jams and their leaders often worry about financial future. This has nothing to do with leadership but everything to do with small size, small population and redundancy of services. Take police protection. In EPSD there are 5 individual police entities operating in one geographic area each with it’s own facilities, union and overhead. I believe in voluntary regionalization and resource sharing initiated from the bottom up.

Another issue cited is the LVIA: I truly have mixed feelings about subsidizing the airport. It is a compelling argument why. The report states:

“Focus group participants and electronic survey respondents noted the need for
additional air service and more affordable rates out of the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE).”

Can’t argue with that. But the answer is how do we get there? How do we get a fully operational LVIA? Is the answer more subsidies distributed by another level of bureaucracy? I honestly don’t know.

Lastly here is one example of something that scares me. It deals with infrastructure subsidies. Here is one line:

“Sustainable funding source to allow for mega site development, municipal water
and sewer in more areas of the counties, broadband connectivity in the rural areas, deal closing opportunities, and more.”

This is rural sewer line expansion. That means one thing to me. Sprawl subsidies. More sprawl Industrial complexes paving over cornfields in the outskirts of the valley. More mega strip centers and suburban office complexes. These practices represent the very lowest economic ROI on valuable land. Sprawl subsidies skew the land market. Without subsidies companies will build close to the people who need the jobs and where the infrastructure already exists. Not where the land is justifiably cheap cause it’s in the middle of nowhere.

It boils down to more subsidies for a wildly inefficient development pattern. Sprawl subsidies will encourage local muni’s looking for a quick windfall to build new infrastructure with no accounting on if they can actually afford to maintain it over the long run. After the subisidies dry up and greenfield developers move on to the next field local taxpayers are the ones left holding the bag. We pay for the ongoing improvements and maintenance for projects that were big ole feathers in the caps of local politicians. In many cases unfortunately new liabilities created far exceed the new revenue generated. It then becomes a simple issue of math. Sprawl is financially unsustainable over the long run.

This is definitely something to keep an eye on. I’ll say this sales tax probably has absolutely zero chance of being approved either by Lehigh or Northampton County councils. Def not with their current legislative boards. I do need to learn more about the LVEDC and this study. I’m interested in hearing from folks who have alot more knowledge on this subjec then me. Arguments for and also against. Please feel free to contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com.

Related articles across the web

Lower Macungie Commissioners Agenda Preview 2/20/14

Posted on by

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

Township Board of Commissioners 2/20/14 – Agenda with detail here

All committees have now met. Committee agendas and meeting times are posted on the township website.

No Hearings

Public Comment on non-agenda items
Lee Mescolotto – Request to schedule hearing for rezoning 8 acre parcel at 7513 Quarry Rd. Mr. Mescolotto is requesting his property be zoned from Agriculture Protection to Highway Commercial. (Strip commercial) Mescolotto has been in front of the Planning & Zoning Committee and also the planning commission multiple times. He and any resident at any time have the right to request a zoning change hearing. The Board of Commissioners however is under no obligation to grant the change.

I believe any zoning change requests to more intense uses should only be granted under community serving circumstances. I use 4 general criteria when evaluating:

  • Planning Goals: Is the application consistent with township and regional planning goals? This includes transportation, financial and land use taking into consideration the purposes of each zone and the zoning pattern of surrounding land. NOTE: This request is not in accordance with both the Lehigh County Planning Commission regional plan or the Southwestern Lehigh Comprehensive plan. The LVPC provided a letter stating they are against this change. 
  • Neighbors: Will the application negatively affect neighboring land uses, property values or quality of life. Is there widespread opposition to a change? Do you live in Ancient Oaks, Farmington or any other adjacent development? If so I am interested in hearing your thoughts. 
  • Return on Public Investment: Will a zoning change resulting from application result in a net increase of tax revenues? Will the zoning change create liabilities? Have costs and benefits been forecasted over multiple life-cycles? I believe Lifecycle cost and benefit analysis should be completed before any up-zoning is granted.
  • Legality. There has been some question raised on if this request is spot zoning. It is the opinion of the the planning commissioners solicitor this is not. 

Mickey Thompson of Pennsylvania Media – Request for continuance for the Schantz road billboard conditional use hearing.

Michael Huff – Statement of interest for library board.

No appointments

Dept. Matters
Engineering
Planner – Report on Joint BOC and Planning Commission Workshop
Solicitor
Manager

Committee Reports
Public Safety (Beitler/Brown) – Next Mtg. Feb 20th 6pm
Ivy Lynn Fox – Letter concerning Trucks Traveling Through East Texas to Macungie Borough. Specifically trucks turning onto East Texas Rd. from Brookside. I’ve forwarded this concern to Penndot via Senator Pat Browne and Rep. Ryan Mackenzie’s offices. Both East Texas Rd. and Brookside Rd. are state roads. I am in complete agreement that tractor trailers on local roads is a major concern we face. The question is how can we better work with Penndot to make sure truck routes are identified with local input.

Budget & Finance (Conrad/Lancsek) – Next Mtg. Feb 20th 6:15 PM
Investigate Homestead Act – This is an initiative I suggested and support. I will be writing about this in depth in the near future. It is a way to reduce property taxes for primary residences while still maintaining current levels on Industrial and Commercial uses.

Planning and Zoning (Lancsek/Beitler) – Next Mtg. March 12th 4:30pm
Approved MS4 permit. (see prior meeting agenda for overview)

Planning Commission recommendation for East Texas study. I support the East Texas study to take a look at community serving zoning changes for East Texas Village meant to preserve the walkable town center character of the area as a traditional neighborhood. The township rec’d a matching grant from the county for 10,000 dollars to pay for the approximately 6 month planning study.

Public Works & Facilities (Brown/Higgins)
Issues and improvements with snow plowing
Review of Snow Emergency Routes & Procedures – Our enforcement officer and township manager believe it is overdue for a review of what roads in the township are designated snow emergency and what criteria is used to make that designation. I agree and think there are many township roads where the designation should be removed. I am interested in learning more about what the criteria is for designation.

General Administration
Work order process for engineer requests – This came out of a recommendation by the Audit Advisory Board to review internal policies for engineering projects.

Review Board/Commission appointment policy regarding need to interview incumbents – I feel strongly that incumbents should interview each time they are up for re-appointment. Some boards (such as zoning hearing board and planning commission) have people turned away due to lack of open spots. Appointments can sometimes be for up to 4 year terms. I absolutely think incumbents should re-apply for open positions and be interviewed in person at a public meeting.

Related articles across the web

Seaside FL. the textbook for Traditional Neighborhood Development

Posted on by

American Makeover Episode 2: SEASIDE, FL THE CITY OF IDEAS

Seaside, FL. Building a traditional neighborhood from scratch. It was a process that started some 30 years ago in Florida. Today the town stands as a testament to tried and true placemaking principles and the traditional development pattern. Of the 600 or so master planned communities in the United States there are a couple examples here in PA that were probably inspired in some ways by Seaside. It’s my hope that a Traditional Neighborhood project is someday built in Lower Macungie. The above 15 minute short film is perhaps the best synopsis of the ideas that make TND developments work.

Idea #1: Create a Town

As in: Not a subdivision or collection of pod like subdivisions. Town implies something. Place implies something. This “something” is typically missing in conventional projects — complete (many uses), complex (mixed uses), compact (close and convenient), connected (through multiple modes of transit and a robust network of route choices).

Idea #2: Incremental growth
Keep debt minimal. Build in small increments, as demand materializes. Avoid the desire to artificially induce large scale projects. Projects should be required to mitigate there impact. Taxpayers should not fund infrastructure projects that do not gaurantee a return on investment.  If they can’t and require subsidies to do so, chances are it isn’t a solid investment of taxpayer dollars over the long term.

Idea #3: Versatile Infrastructure
See number 2. Infrastructure should be able to pull double (or triple) duty. Avoid the wasteful and costly sprawl practice of directing new investments to fringe developments where taxpayer ROI is low or negative.

“Is urban sprawl to blame for municipalities going bankrupt?”

Idea #4: Incubator Retail 

Low-cost opportunities for proof-of-concept encourage creative experimentation. Some of these experiments will thrive. Some will fail. But entrepreneurs are (and should be) the ones who shoulder the risk while seeking the rewards.

Idea #5: Progressive Retail
Once established, thriving businesses can upgrade to permanent, higher-end space. Part B of Idea 4. A successful business will grow naturally.

Idea #6: Mixed-Use Buildings
Markets don’t necessarily support large, mixed-use buildings early on. Start with modest, one story buildings that can expand over time or be redeveloped to incorporate additional uses once demand has materialized. Organic growth.

Idea #7: Live/Work Units
The “little house on the prairie” is not the only American Dream. We also dream of being our own boss and the live/work unit is the perfect vehicle for serving that dream. Plus, they allow for the development of retail with dispersed risk. Oftentimes developers who fear these investments are the first to admit after build out they are the best selling units.

Idea #8: Agnostic to Style. Form & Function over design standards. 
Get the form right above all else. How do buildings interact with the street. Are streets safe for all users not just cars? Does one mode of transportation dominate all others. Recognize and pay special attention to the impact transportation investments have on land uses, community form and function. Culture, economics, climate, and fashion will dictate the style game. In sprawl communities we over regulate design standards as an alternative to fixing the core issues.

Idea #9: Celebrate Civic Buildings
Reserve civic sites up front, but let the community champion their visioning, process and programming.

Idea #10: Amenities for Everyone
Don’t hide or privatize amenities. The most desirable aspects of community should be accessible sources of civic pride.

Idea #11: Good Street Geometry = Free Range Kids
When streets are skinny, pedestrians rule. Avoid STROADS. Build roads to move cars and streets to to generate value. Never try to combine both. Otherwise you end up with a futon.

Idea #12: Recover Trusty Traditions 
Patterns evolve for a reason. There is wisdom in tradition. Sprawl was an over-reaction to our love affair with cars. Cars aren’t going anywhere. Nor do smart growth advocates want to limit their usage. It’s a matter of preference. Today more and more often people no longer want to spend a quarter of their lives locked in commute. People are seeking community. The market reflects a desire for walkable, connected communities.

Idea #13: Work with Nature 
Embrace and incorporate natural responses to climate.

Idea #14: Pervious Streets
Streets can and should help manage their own impacts. Above all else this is a matter of dollars and cents. We simply cannot afford to continue to pay for inefficient development practices.

Idea #15: Original Green – Less is More
Original Green solutions can solve problems, save money and perpetuate a tactile, craftsman ethos. When we try to regulate our way out of problems the solutions are usually costly.

Idea #16: Vision = Seeing Beyond the Present
“The discipline of vision is not being sunk by present circumstances, reduced to the present circumstances, which often are nothing.” — Andrés Duany

Related articles across the web

Lower Mac Snow Emergency & Trash update for 2/12 storm

Posted on by

Snowstorm

A Snow Emergency will be in effect starting at 11 PM, February 12th, until further notice. All cars must be removed from Snow Emergency Routes or they may be towed. These Routes have permanent (red & white) signs indicating it is a Snow Emergency Route. As a courtesy, the Township may place temporary signs along Snow Emergency Routes today.

Lower Macungie Snow Preparedness Guide

Waste Management has notified us that they are not operating tomorrow, February 13th. Thursday and Friday trash/recycling collection will be on a one-day delay. DO NOT PLACE YOUR TRASH IN THE STREET. Please place trash where it will not be impacted by snow removal operations.

Roads within LMT are maintained by both the Township and PennDOT. Click here to see a list of PennDOT roads. Any concerns regarding a state road should be directed to PennDOT at 610-798-4280.

Click here for list of township and State Roads.

Some notes from LMFD: Click here to visit FB page.

Make sure  down spouts are free and clear of snow and ice. In addition, make sure that the run off has somewhere to go, so trench a path away from the house too. If your down spouts are all blocked up, the rain water will have no where to go and you run the risk of it entering your home.

Also do you have a hydrant on your property? Please don’t forget to clear out the fire hydrant on your property. 3 – 4 feet around the whole perimeter please. This is the responsibility of the homeowner with hydrant on property.

REMEMBER: There is often confusion about municipality folks live in. Remember, this information pertains to Lower Macungie Twp. If you live in Emmaus Borough, Macungie Borough or Alburtis Borough they each declare there own emergencies which or may not start and end different times. Your address may be one or the other but you may still be in Lower Mac. If your unsure ask! Message your address. Ronbeitler@gmail.com

Information about Emmaus Borough, Macungie Borough, Alburtis Borough.

Related articles across the web

Gas Tax – Economics – Transportation – Better Places

Posted on by

It’s time to stop putting off tough conversations. No one encapsulates the message better then Strongtowns.org. This short piece by streetfilms.org does a great job of giving a concise overview.

It’s all about re-examining the intersection of financing, design and long term financial viability of our places. The top down gas tax system is failing. The answer isn’t raising the tax. In fact, the answer isn’t in the inefficiencies of a top down system at all. Our system is one where localities get back nickels and dimes on the dollar. It will never workout over the long run. The math doesn’t work.

Let’s scale back DC’s role in the equation. Turn the system on it’s head. Return local control. Make developers pay the true costs of projects by rolling back big gov’t subsidies. Then municipalities will start only building the supporting infrastructure that they can actually afford to maintain. Organic incremental growth is healthier for our local economies. That is the financial foundation of smart growth. 

http://www.streetfilms.org/

Related articles across the web

Ebike deregulation clears transportation committee

Posted on by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle

Part of smart growth is advocating for optional alternatives to automobiles. Folks like myself don’t want to stop driving or stop others from driving cars.  I like my car. I just want alternatives so I’m not forced to spend such a large chunk of my life in it. This is a trend with young adults nationwide who have less interest spending a quarter of their life in commute. Communities that grow in a way where a family can get by (if they choose to) with 1 car will be at a competitive advantage.

By design I live close enough to work to walk or bike if I choose. It’s something I enjoy doing. Once there, my office is located on a traditional Main St. where services like our bank and accountant are each less then 3 blocks away. We also have a half dozen lunch options within walking or biking distance.

Think about your household. How many cars? Now calculate how much it costs to own, insure and maintain them. Imagine the money saved by getting rid of just one. Complete streets, walkable communities and mixed land use policies allow options. That’s what it’s all about.

Recently, I started exploring the option of purchasing an Ebike.  Ebikes have been surging in popularity over the last few years. Ebikes are used by people with disabilities and seniors who like the extra assistance, those who want to reduce their carbon footprint and those who simply want to save a little gas money. Ebikes are not mopeds. They are bicycles powered by pedals with optional electric power. Ready to ride or kits to convert regular bikes have come down in price to a point where they are a viable option for those who want a little freedom from the car. I’m perfectly fine with pedals, but on a hot day the extra electric boost is great.

The issue I and others have run into is that ebikes are highly regulated in Pennsylvania. Most states treat bicycles with power assist as bicycles. Pa’s dated law classifies electric-assist bicycles as motorized pedalcycles or mopeds and therefore requires them to be licensed, titled & insured.

Federal law is very clear and treats Bicycles with electric assist of less then 750 watts of motor output and <20 mph top speed as bicycles and laws apply as such.

Last year state Senator Matt Smith proposed legislation legalizing pedal-assist electric bicycles. Senate Bill 997 deregulates pedal-assist electric bicycles treating electric bicycles the same as regular bicycles, meaning riders are not required to have insurance or register the two-wheeler. This would bring PA law in line with federal law which draws a distinction between ebikes and mopeds. Most smart growth policy is about deregulation and common sense reform. This falls squarely into that category.

SB 997 cleared a hurdle passing in the transportation committee by unanimous vote on Feb 4th. The measure now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

Read more:
Proposed Pennsylvania law would allow electric bikes without insurance, registration

 

Related articles across the web

Act 111 reform is needed in Pennsylvania

Posted on by

Last night, the Lower Macungie Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted unanimously to continue with Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) as our primary police provider. This decision came after conducting a comprehensive crime study. Results show we have the 7th lowest crime rate of Pennsylvania’s 35 largest townships. Our rate is 1/3 of Lehigh County’s average.

We have the luxury of basing a decision on data. We’re statistically a safe community and PSP does an outstanding job. Someday however, our community will have to address the method by which we secure coverage. This will happen either when A. crime data rises or B. state requires municipalities pay for PSP. This may happen in 5 years or it may happen in 20 years. No one knows.

Understanding some day we’ll face this decision we must consider all the factors involved. One of those factors is efforts to reform Act 111. Act 111 outlines how municipalities are required to negotiate legacy costs that make local police/fire departments financially unsustainable. 41 percent of Pennsylvania’s population live in municipalities facing fiscal distress. Local police/fire services are the single biggest cost item in many local budgets.

Act 111 arbitration awards contribute to escalating costs by handcuffing local governments. The act requires unions and municipalities to engage in binding arbitration during contract disputes. While the intent is good, the mechanism is 45 years old and needs reform. Act 111 gives unions unfair advantages – reaping large settlements that cost us all.

Until reforms are addressed as one member of the 5 person BOC I am wary about taking Lower Macungie down a path where issues like this are front and center where unelected outside arbitrators have so much power. Someday we’re going to have to address the potential of a local force. Until then it’s a concern that we don’t enter the township into a flawed system 

Here are two examples where Act 111 has led to financial stress and tax increases:

1. In 2013 after a 19 month Act 111 process paid for by Borough taxpayers, an unelected “neutral” arbitrator with no ties to the community rendered a ruling that forced Chambersburg to hike taxes. Here, Act 111 prohibited a locally elected council from managing their paid fire department in the best interests of their residents.  Read more here: From town council to the citizens of Chambersburg Borough.

2. Last year Bristol Twp. was forced into Act 111 Arbitration seeking relief from $85.8 Million in unfunded liabilities including $77 Million in Post-Retirement Health obligations. Bristol received nothing from an unelected arbitrator to help reduce crippling legacy costs. The union was awarded 4% and 3.5% raises. Today the township has 10 less Police officers than it did in 2012. Unfunded liabilities have now increased to $91 Million. The can was kicked down the road and the underlying issues were left.

Act 111 has serious consequences for communities. It removes what should be exclusively local decisions from residents and their elected officials. The system requires municipalities to negotiate in good faith but unions don’t. Everyone wants to see fire and police professionals treated fairly. The intent of Act 111 is good, but as it stands today it’s a 45-year-old outdated law in desperate need of modernization.

There are those seeking fair reform of Act 111. I support these efforts. Our State Senator Pat Browne (R) 16 is one of them signing on as a co-sponsor of SB 1111. The bill was crafted by Sen. John Eichelberger, (R) Blair, chairman of the Senate Local Government Committee.

Senator Browne addressed his position in a statement: “After 45 years, it is appropriate that the General Assembly take a comprehensive look at the local government collective bargaining process to ensure it strikes the proper balance between the rights of our important municipal police and firefighters and the taxpaying public,” Senator Pat Browne said. “We should ensure that when labor contract decisions are taken out of the hands of local elected officials and placed in arbitration that the process maximizes transparency and thoroughly considers the implications that any prospective reward will have on both municipal financial sustainability and public safety employment attraction/retention.”

This is a large part of what SB 1111 addresses. Highlights of SB 1111 reforms include:

  • Penalize either party for failing to engage in good faith bargaining;
  • Must show ability to pay through justification and consideration of new costs;
  • Start arbitrator selection process between both parties by coin toss;
  • Expand the list from which a neutral arbitrator is selected from 3 to 7;
  • Require the cost of arbitration be shared equally between both parties;
  • Codify the avenues of appeal of an award by either side.
  • Require evidentiary hearings to be open to the public (sunshine law);
  • Prohibit post-retirement health care and pension benefits from being subjects of collective bargaining.

These reforms will inject much needed fairness into the Act. 111 process.

As an elected local municipal official I often have to deal with mandates that take away our ability to make the right decisions for residents of Lower Macungie. I believe that Act 111 reform is essential. The effort currently has widespread bi-partisan support from municipal leaders, business leaders and community development organizations such as the Pennsylvania Economy League, Coalition for Sustainable Communities and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners.

Related articles across the web

Lower Macungie Commissioners Agenda Preview 2/6/14

Posted on by

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

Another light agenda this week. Most committees are meeting for the first time since reorganization last week, this week and next week. The next meeting will likely be a beefier one.

Announcements & Presentations – None

Hearings & Approvals – None

Public Comment on non-agenda items
-Two statements of interest for Zoning Hearing Board. (What is zoning hearing board?) Folks interested can still apply. Apply here.

-Two statements of interest for Audit Advisory Board and one for Public Safety Commission.

-LMT Planning Commission – Recommendation for BOC approval to create a steering committee to establish a Capital Planning roadmap modeled after Penndot’s 12 year plan. A capital improvement plan is a tool used to assess the long term capital project requirements of a government entity. The purpose for LMT is to evaluate requests for capital items such as maintenance of parks, trails, sanitary sewer, storm water management, open space preservation, public works and fire equipment. The written plan would hopefully identify and describe capital projects requests,rank priority, forecast the years in which funding each project is to occur and methods of funding. I support this initiative. Without a long term capital projects roadmap smart growth planning is incomplete. At it’s core, smart growth is important because it lays out a sustainable financial roadmap for our township. Planning ahead for capital needs is critical.

There are 3 letters dealing with snow removal this week. 1 suggestion, 1 complimentary and 1 complaint.

1 request for installation of walking path at Church Lane Park. (see above capital improvements planning!)

Lastly, we have a letter from a resident concerned with tractor trailers turning right onto East Texas Rd. off of Brookside. This is a major concern. One of the biggest priorities over the next 4 years is establishing how we’re going to proactively deal with Tractor Trailer traffic in the township. With the proliferation of warehousing in the township due to the unfortunate tragic rezoning of 100’s of acres of farmland to industrial we face no bigger safety and quality of life issue. I consider this a planning, public works and public safety issue.

Appointments to Boards – None

Planning: Approved MS4 Permit.  OVERVIEW: The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waterways without the appropriate permits. Pennsylvania’s Stormwater Management Act MS4 Program, Chapter 102, and NPDES Permit Program for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities are amongst the Commonwealth’s methods for meeting the runoff-related requirements of the Clean Water Act. For all practical purposes, though, implementation of stormwater management efforts in Pennsylvania occurs at the community level because individual municipalities are ultimately responsible for adopting zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development regulations, and other programs that keep their locality’s runoff under control. Note: this is an area I am familiar with but need more information about. I will hopefully be meeting with staff tomorrow for a primer on this subject prior to the BOC meeting.

There will be a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners on Feb 18th. I will post the agenda when it is set.

Committees:  Here is a link to a list of committees & corresponding responsibilities.

At first meetings of the year the Committees will be establishing goals for the year. This was a request by President Conrad. I will outline these goals in a future blog post.

Planning & Zoning – The planning and zoning committee will meet Feb 12th.

The planning commission has nominated Barry Isett and Associates to conduct the East Texas comprehensive planning. We rec’d a 10,000 matching grant from the county to pay for this. The purpose of this study is to explore zoning and planning options for the East Texas area of the township.

We will explore adopting a new Village Zoning District for East Texas that allows a mix of lower-intensity commercial and residential uses. The idea is to use Traditional Neighborhood Development principles as part of infill construction or any redevelopment of parts of any portion of Day-Timers not utilized by a future tenant.  Zoning should help preserve and enhance the historic character and walkability of the village.

These concepts as they relate to LMT are also outlined in the townships draft smart growth plan.

Authorize to advertise: Ordinance prohibiting trucks beyond scenic view on Gehman Rd. I want to see where the signs will be placed. I believe it’s important to avoid signage placed in a way that we encourage trucks to use Scenic View (through a residential neighborhood) as an “out” when they realize they cannot proceed further towards Mountain Rd.

Approval of Street Sweeper and Truck Bid: This is to replace public works equipment. This was reviewed by the prior board as a part of the 2014 budget process.

Work order process for engineering projects: This came out of a recommendation by the Audit Advisory Board to review internal policies for engineering projects.

Review Board/Commission appointment policy regarding the need to interview incumbents. I feel strongly that incumbents should interview each time they are up for re-appointment. Some boards (such as zoning hearing board and planning commission) have people turned away due to lack of open spots. Appointments can sometimes be for up to 4 year terms. I absolutely think incumbents should re-apply for open positions and be interviewed in person at a public meeting.