CEPTA to present speaker on public pension reform

Posted on by

Last month I attended the inaugural LV Smart Growth Summit. The most valuable seminar I participated in was unfortunately sparsely attended. This wasn’t a reflection on the quality of presentation which included Gerry Cross from PA Economy League, Easton Mayor Sal Panto and Tom Baldridge. But rather the fact it was going against a program called “The Biz of the Niz”. NIZ of course still remains the hottest of hot button topics in the LV. (Today over at LVR Bernie writes about the NIZ)

The presentation was “Seeing Red: PA Municipalities & Maintaining Local Gov’t Services”. Dealt with long term fiscal sustainability of municipalities. Bottom line fiscal health of our places is why I feel so strongly about smart growth. Under our current model, it’s not a matter of ‘if’ but rather ‘when’ a municipality becomes distressed.

The overarching problem is two-fold and the presentation addressed both:

1. When tax base increases do not keep up with increases in liabilities. This is “Dumb growth”, the chasing of ratables and doubling down on the growth ponzi scheme are a huge part of this.

2. And equally important is the public pension issue.

Together they’re 1 and 1a in terms of issues facing PA gov’ts. Often in PA municiple personnel costs are upwards of 70% total expenditures. PA with our 3,200 individual local gov’t pension plans accounts for 25% of all plans in the nation. 2/3 of plans have 10 or fewer members. Most alarming is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Tomorrow night (Tue Nov. 18th) at 7pm CEPTA will have Simon Campbell speak in a presentation entitled “Public Union Reform”. This is an important conversation addressing concern number 2. Public pensions are always a contentious topic since here in the commonwealth so many benefit directly and indirectly from them. It’s institutionalized here in our state. It’s why it’s so hard to “fix”.

I am un-familiar with Campbell and I’m looking forward to hearing his thoughts on solutions. Here is the overview from the CEPTA website:

Mr. Campbell will discuss the expected increases in taxes due to the rapid escalations that are expected to replenish the underfunded public pension funds. The most recent account of the state’s two major pensions shows they are underfunded by a combined $47 billion, and this assumes the funds will grow by 7.5% annually. Funding these pensions will cause increases in all taxes, including school taxes, just to start to close this gap. Eventually every dollar of school tax increase may go just to fund pension obligations and teacher contracted raises and benefits.

Simon Campbell thinks he has a solution to the ever growing tax increases due to public employee contracted obligation. If you think your taxes are too high and want to find out how you can help control them come out and listen and ask questions of our presenter and see for yourself if it’s possible.

 

Interested in PA’s the public pension issue? Here is some more materials:

Devolving Hamilton Crossings a concern…

Posted on by

Last night did nothing to alleviate concerns I have with the Hamilton Crossings project slowly but surely transforming into a typical run of the mil box project.

Here WFMZ’s Randy Kraft does an excellent job summarizing: Lower Mac planning commissioner not happy with how Hamilton Crossings is evolving

I hope any County Commissioners on the fence take the time to examine concerns planning Commission has regarding this project. There is real concern about quality. County Commissioners need to take this into account when re-considering TIF. I want this project to move forward. It makes sense from a planning perspective. This represents “smarter growth” even only in terms of getting more return on investment building where significant infrastructure improvements have already been made. This is the appropriate location for retail. Yes, I prefer more neighborhood centric. More “Main Street” in character, but fundamentally this makes sense here as opposed to building a shopping center in some cornfield out on the fringe ala the typical “Jaindly” blueprint. But I want the project we were sold. I did have issues with TIF financing, but  moving past that if it is to move forward it absolutely must be what we were promised. County Commissioners have a duty to do their due diligence we’re getting what we were promised if they choose to move forward funding. I trust they are.

Pictures say a thousand words:

Tone we were promised: This represents a “Promenade esque” walkable town center. Looking down the streetscape you see shops and attractive facades. You see a place where people can mingle, shop and relax. We were sold on the new “Gateway to the township” that we could all be proud of as a community. This is what we were promised when the developers were “selling” the project for TIF financing.

This is the rendering used to win the “hearts and minds” of residents when the developer was making a pitch for public financing.

Here is the current Costco rendering….. It’s a box. One that has been described as “cheap looking”, bland, boxy, generic.

Proposed Costco rendering for Lower Macungie Township

There are MUCH MUCH nicer Costcos as I’ve outlined in previous posts. For some reason we’re getting a “cheapo” one. We shouldn’t accept that based on what we were promised when the developer was seeking funding.

3 important township meetings this week – Get involved!

Posted on by

1. Tonight Nov. 11th 6pm Parks & Recreation Comprehensive plan presentation. Municipal Building – 3400 Brookside Rd.

The Township currently owns approximately 1,000 acres of park and open space land that contain 26 municipal parks of various sizes and types. Township staff, a volunteer task force, members of the Parks and Recreation Board and EAC, and a consultant team has been working together for a year to prepare a Comprehensive Recreation, Parks and Open Space Plan.

The draft plan is now available for review here on the Township website. Please take the time to read through the document to see what is being planned for our parks! Tonight at the workshop the public will be given an opportunity to offer suggestions for improving our parks and recreation offerings. The meeting will be held at the Municipal Building, 3400 Brookside Road in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room.

2. Nov. 12th 7pm Planning Commission – Hamilton Crossings Land Development. This meeting will be held at the Wescosville Recreation Center.

The land development process is the publics final chance to weigh in on the proposed mega shopping center. I have been supportive of the plan but still have huge concerns we are “getting what we were promised“. The quality of our local shopping centers directly reflects the desirability of our community. This shopping center can either knock us down or raise us up a peg. It will be the “gateway” to the township. If funding problems are worked out we must ensure we are getting what were promised and not a watered down strip mall version.

3. Nov. 12th 7pm Community Center (Library) – Police Protection Study results. 
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the completed Analysis of Option for Police Services. The public is encouraged to attend.A preliminary memo was posted with some baseline data projections. Whether or not to move forward with another policing option is one of the biggest issues we face moving forward.

In today’s Morning Call I participated in a point counterpoint regarding police protection.

Thoughts on any of these issues? contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com 

Youth movement in Lower Macungie Township

Posted on by

The average age of myself, Brian Higgins and Ryan Conrad is 35. This will bring the average of the Lower Macungie Board of Commissioners to around 45 along with Doug Brown, 55 and Jim Lancsek who will be the elder statesmen at 60.

The previous composition of the board averaged nearly 60 in age. Ron Eichenberg and Roger Reis the outgoing incumbents were 67 and 70.

There are at least 4 township volunteers serving on the EAC, Parks and Public safety boards under 40 who have applied and were appointed over the last year or so.

I think this is great and I’m excited to be a part of a young forward thinking board. The current age composition is much more in line with our demographics where the median age is 41. It would be nice to have a little more diversity on the board. I know one woman I hope runs in two years. The best person for the job regardless of gender, age or race should win elections but diversity is never a bad thing.

Police services study preliminary report

Posted on by

Below is the preliminary memo for the police services study. The full forum unveiling the results of the study will be presented in a public forum Nov. 12th at 7pm in the Community Center.

My detailed thoughts on this issue will be outlined in an upcoming Morning Call point counterpoint.

Pennsylvania State Police in Lower Macungie Townships primary provider for police protection.

Here is the memo:

TO: Lower Macungie Township
FROM: Gary Cordner, Consultant DATE: October 31, 2013
RE: Police Services Study

This memo is intended to serve as a preview of the police services report that will be completed by December 31, 2013. The consultant is still collecting data for the report and will participate in a public forum on November 12. Public comment at and following the forum will be incorporated into the final report.

The following “facts” and findings seem unlikely to change between now and the final report:

 

1. Lower Macungie Township (LMT) is unusual in not having its own police department. The township’s 2013 estimated population is 31,000, a 60% increase since 2000. LMT is the 22nd largest township (by population) in Pennsylvania. It is the 2nd largest township in the commonwealth that relies solely upon the state police for its police service.

 

2. LMT has a low crime rate. The 2012 estimated Part 1 crime rate of 1083.8 per 100,000 residents is about 1/3 the rate for Lehigh County and is 7th lowest among Pennsylvania’s 35 largest townships.

 

3. Over 80% of the Part 1 crimes in LMT in 2012 were thefts. Thefts increased 15% from 2010 to 2012.

 

4. The state police clearance rate in Lehigh County in 2012 (the percent of Part 1 crimes that were solved) was 32.9%. This exceeds the national clearance rate by a substantial margin.

 

5. State police activity in LMT increased from 2010 to 2012. DUI arrests more than doubled and traffic citations increased by almost 50%.

 

6. The state police do not routinely respond to a variety of types of incidents, such as parking complaints, animal complaints, lockouts, ambulance calls, and township ordinance violations.

 

7. LMT saves $4-5 million per year (about $150 per resident) by not having its own police department.

 

The “bottom line” is largely unchanged from previous police services studies. Lower Macungie Township has a low crime rate and a relatively low demand for police service, in spite of significant population growth and proximity to Pennsylvania’s third largest city. The police services currently provided are highly professional, albeit at a relatively low level.

A drawback of the current arrangement is that the residents and elected leaders of the township have little or no influence over the police services that are provided, since it is a state agency that provides those services. The benefit is that the township is not burdened with the cost of policing or the substantial administrative responsibility that accompanies a separate local police department. The final report will discuss additional options, such as a part-time police department, contracting for police services from another municipality, participation in a regional police department, and other hybrid models. All of these other options would entail some financial cost, of course. The report will not offer any recommendations, only options with associated costs and benefits. Fundamentally, the situation is one in which the township needs to decide (as it has in the past) what level of police service it wants in conjunction with how much it wishes to spend for that service. page1image20840

Call to local officials to attend fiscal impact analysis discussion.

Posted on by

I am so happy the presentation below is coming to Lower Macungie. Big thanks to our professional planner and staff for facilitating this. This is EXACTLY why I ran for office. I don’t like to pigeon hole myself by saying I have any kind of single agenda, but if I had to define one this would be it.

To me the fiscal sustainability of land development decisions IS smart growth. Smart growth is a big nebulous term. And people subscribe to it for different reasons. Quality of Life, Social Equity, Environmental. And yes, I think there is merit in all these conversations. But for me, none is more important for the Lower Macungie and the greater Lehigh Valley then the financial argument for smart growth.

Here in Lower Macungie that means conducting a cost benefit analysis to major development projects and all requests for rezoning of large tracts. Scattered, disconnected, low-quality sprawling growth is a wealth destroyer. The model we have subscribed to pushes off many of the liabilities of sprawl to subsequent generations. We have to break the pattern. It’s happening right now in Lower Macungie as we face the dedication of new roadways and storm water management facilities from the “growth boom”. We’re only now facing the problems of living off of one time revenue and windfall of growth without addressing financial sustainability.

The key for Lower Mac is “smart growth” on the Hamilton Corridor where we have already made key infrastructure investments and preservation of remaining open space tracts in the western portion of the township.

The quality of life case is obvious. But the fiscal argument is irrefutable. I hope this conversation gives us some more tools to start these conversations.

Nobody makes the fiscal argument better then Jim Bacon.

 

Join the American Planning Association, Pennsylvania Chapter, Lehigh Valley Section & Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for the fourth presentation in our Web/Audio Conference Series for Professional Planners, Municipal Officials & Interested Citizens

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AS A DECISION SUPPORT TOOL
DECEMBER 4TH, 2013
4-5 PM AT LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, 3400 BROOKSIDE ROAD, MACUNGIE

DESCRIPTION:   Until recently, few jurisdictions prepared their own fiscal impact analyses to assist land-use decisions. But since the economic downturn, local governments have increasingly turned to fiscal and economic analysis as a decision support tool, particularly with an eye toward return on investment. This lecture concentrates on distinguishing between fiscal and economic impacts, understanding differences in local government revenue structures and how they influence the fiscal results from different land uses, and investigating how various communities use fiscal impact analyses to support planning and economic development decisions.  Experts from the American Planning Association will be presenting.

There is no cost to participate. To register e-mail Kathleen Sauerzopf  kms@lvpc.org or call 610-264-4544

 Hope to see you there!

 Becky Bradley – Executive Director of LVPC

Tue Nov. 5th is Election Day

Posted on by

Tomorrow, Tuesday Nov. 5th is Election day. It’s likely I will win a slot on the Board of Commissioners since the real battle was the primary when Brian Higgins and I knocked out two incumbents.

Despite outside interest money pouring into incumbent campaigns Brian and I prevailed. Moving forward into tomorrows election we need you one more time to help send a clear message. Residents are not happy with decisions made over the last 3 years. Frankly, I am tired of talking about the last 3 years and I look forward to moving on. But one last time it’s important people go to the polls with knowledge of poor choices incumbents made over the last 3 years.

To recap one final time. Over the last 3 years:

1. The incumbents including Ryan Conrad secretly negotiated a 700 acre zoning deal with developer David Jaindl. This obligated the township to assist Jaindl in building low employment warehouses, housing and low quality strip commercial. This will destroy the last great tract of prime farmland in the township.

I fought this every step of the way. I would not have engaged in the MOU. I would have fought to protect agricultural zoning that was in place for 2 decades. I would have accepted the small quarry over the Industrial, residential and commercial.

2. When the above deal was challenged, Commissioners refused to testify and justify their actions. This meant the residents would have had to subpoena the commissioners to learn the details.

I will always defend my decisions in the most public of forums. I will never hide from decisions I make.

3. The incumbents claimed to support smart growth… but approved another large zoning change requested by a developer to allow more than 200 apartments on a piece of land that fellow commissioner and realtor Ron Eichenberg is selling as the real estate agent.

I will completely and totally recuse myself from any conflicts of interest I may have as a commissioner. I will promote smart growth, not simply pay lip service to it or promote a watered down concept.

4. The incumbents inexplicably moved ahead with cutting a hole in the middle of the townships Kratzer farm property. They did this against the advice of the township recreation board, Environmental Advisory Council and Planning Commission. All 3 expressed concern that letting the house become privately owned could create future problems for a public park.

I will always take into account the opinions of our invaluable staff and volunteer boards. I also regularly attend all commissions above and beyond what I am required to do. I did this as a candidate and will continue as Commissioner. 

5. Took credit for preventing new taxes and paying down township debt in one of the fastest growing and richest townships in the state. We were able to do this not because of financial wizardry but because of one time windfall from 20 years of hyper growth. By not addressing financial sustainability until the township manager pushed, we actually dug a deeper hole. By waiting until we had to address a deficit budget Commissioners put us in a tougher situation.

I will not bury my head in the sand for political gain. This tax issue should have been discussed months ago rather then waiting for the township manager to force a reaction when faced with a deficit budget. I spoke of financial sustainability at meetings as far back as over a year ago. The community that fails to plan ahead, plans for failure.

On Tuesday say no to politics as usual

Posted on by

In an email to his supporters Ryan Conrad writes about the vote in favor of re-implementing a property tax. He writes:

The other candidates in this race have been silent on this issue.  Where do they stand?  Voters deserve an answer.
-Ryan Conrad in a pretty misleading letter to his supporters

Problem is, this is not true. I’ve written about the tax issue at length in many forums. I was in fact THE first candidate to address fiscal sustainability months ago warning voters about the pending increase long before it was on the table.

I  support sustainably low taxes. But I don’t just give lip service. I’ve also laid out the “how”. By not addressing the ‘how’ politicians simply pander for votes and engage in politics as usual.

Mr. Conrad states he is opposed to re-implementing a property tax. The problem is he has provided no roadmap and zero direction on how he plans on keeping taxes sustainably low. I on the other hand have. On Tuesday Conrad and Roger Reis failed to pair ‘no’ votes with further cuts, alternatives they support or systemic changes they would implement to support their positions.

I have done this by outlining a path to fiscal sustainability through smart growth that addresses the root causes:

  • Here via a letter to the editor in the East Penn Press, patch and on my blog.
  • And here overviewing the nuances of the issue.
  • And here as far back as 1 year ago pleading with the BOC to initiate cost and benefit analysis of zoning changes.

I’ve outlined a roadmap grounded in smart growth where we can continue to grow in a financially sustainable way that protects quality of life and leads to increased revenue while avoiding the specter of constantly raising taxes.

Voters in LMT are clearly smart enough to see through ‘politics as usual’. This is how I won the primary even though I was outspent by huge margins in a coordinated campaign that enlisted television ads, fake newsletters and a barrage of robo-calls on voters.

So I ask you one last time, on Tuesday help me finish what we started.

-Ron 

85th percentile speed

Posted on by

Followup to my “Penndot in a nutshell” post.

Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified

To try to make sure my criticism is justified I felt it’s important to understand the “85th percentile rule” or rather the way it’s applied. So I spent the AM trying to wrap my head around it. The better I understand it the crazier I think it’s application is.

What is the 85th % rule: 

The concept is rather simple: the speed limit of a road is set by determining the speed of 85% of cars that go down it. In other words, the speed limit is solely set by the speed of drivers.

 

Problems with this:

  • Drivers drive at speeds according to risk to themselves. Not other motorists or pedestrians.
  • When you have a system based on characteristics of drivers influenced by the environment, the solution is always to “change the environment” through “improvements” which are usually astonishingly expensive.
  • The 15% who exceed the 85% are the ones who… ya know. Kill people.
  • My biggest problem is the complete and total lack of taking into account neighborhood context. Meaning how does the road interact with the built environment? Is it a rural 35 road next to a cornfield or is it an urban 35 mph road next to a dense town center. Lower Macungie is no longer rural. It is urban. That ship sailed 20 years ago.

Transit blogger “Cap’n Transit” has the solution. Take the 85th percentile principle and flip it’s application.  Because context is completely ignored in the “East Texas” example the danger posed by those in the upper 15% is amplified. So flip the application of the theory. Cap’n transit suggests:

1. Decide on a speed limit based on the pedestrian, cyclist and built environment you want to see along this road. (In other words do not look at the road in a vacuum! CONTEXT matters)

2. Design the road so that 85% of drivers will feel comfortable traveling under that speed.

Voila. As “Cap’n Transit” points out “by reversing those two steps, we make safety a priority over speed, and we acknowledge the value of a safe pedestrian environment in maintaining a livable community.” Community context, in general this would leave the speed limit on the bypass where it is (where common sense says it should actually be higher…), but lower it where context dictates it.

Penndot in a nutshell.

Posted on by

A resident submitted a request to explore the speed limit on Willow Lane/East Texas Rd. a few months ago. Since Willow Ln otherwise known by Penndot as “State Rt. 3003” is a state road even though local Commissioners agreed in theory to a speed limit reduction the request had to go through the Ultimate Bureaucracy (tm) of PENNDOT.

Now bear in mind this section of Willow Lane goes through the Village of East Texas. It’s a long time residential neighborhood. In some cases homes are 20 feet away from the roadway. It’s an area that’s been a residential community for almost a century. The area of study encompassed East Texas Rd. at Brookside through East Texas to just beyond the Willows Restaurant.

Fast forward. I was wondering what was up so I emailed Bruce our Township Manager for an update. I rec’d the following letter from Penndot that was sent to LMT.

Here is everything wrong with Penndot in a nutshell.

Follow me here. Residents submitted a petition signed by nearly the entire neighborhood requesting a speed limit reduction since they felt the speed didn’t match up with the residential character of the Village of East Texas. The township supported the request. In fact they even identify East Texas as a traditional town center area. In other words all interested parties who actually understand the context of the road agree.

But based on one sized fits all engineering guidelines, Penndot’s answer is….. wait for it. . .

To actually increase the design speed of the road!!!

Let that sink in. This my friends is insanity. Penndot’s answer is increasing design speed by widening the street, flattening the street, removing all trees so cars can drive faster, THEN posting a speed limit so they slow down?

Penndot completely ignores the context and character of the roadway with it’s one sized fits all application of the 85th percentile speed. It applies standards blindly as if every road was a connector street.
85% speed followup post.

This letter reflects everything parodied in this wildly popular strongtowns.org youtube video entitled “Conversation with an Engineer”. Everything wrong with the “Ultimate Bureaucracy” ™ of Penndot. If you have never seen this take a moment and watch it. I can’t wait til we come up with a community serving plan for Hamilton Blvd. and Penndot just completely torpedoes it. Can’t wait….

 

 

NOTE: I’ve contacted the offices of Rep. Schlossberg (serves on transportation committee), Rep Mackenzie who represents LMT and State Senator Pat Browne. I wish to have them walk this neighborhood and see the situation on the ground. I will report back when I get replies. 

1PM: ADDED SOME PHOTOS FOR CONTEXT for those not familiar with the neighborhood.

Speeding problems? Cut down the trees so it’s safer for cars to drive faster!!!

Residential character that the “one sized fits all” Penndot design standards completely ignore.

The gentleman who first circulated the petition lives in this area. He was absolutely correct to request a speed reduction. Turns out almost 100% of his neighbors agree.