August Meetings:

Click here for the controversial fall newsletter article

Some thoughts on the previous meetings:

Budget Workshop Addendum:

There are many people who seem to be confused on the Park & Rec portion of the tax cut. The proposed reduction in tax does not affect any events like T-Ball, Fleetwood Baseball, soccer, or Community Days, Car Show etc. All these events & programs are self funding. In 2006 Park & Rec showed a $50,000 surplus. Also in 2006 Park & Rec paid off the loan for the land midway through the year. The loan payment was $1870. The payoff amount was about $12600. Also property tax receipts increased about 5% between 2004 & 2005.

If there were no tax reduction the Park & Rec SURPLUS would grow from $50,000 to well over $73,000.

The board's proposal will reduce the surplus from the projected $73,000 to about $23,000.

Furthermore, back in 2001 when the land was purchased, board members did say that the tax would be lowered when the park was built out, and the loan paid off. This board has the desire to fulfill that promise.

There is no reason the programs such as T-Ball would be affected. These programs rely on things beyond the supervisors' control, such as parents to volunteer as administrators and coaches etc, but there is nothing in the proposed 2007 budget that would prevent these programs from flourishing.

2007 Budget Workshop:

General Fund:

The budget workshop was eventful. It looks like we MAY be able to CUT the township property tax by 20%.

The supervisors wanted to set targets for the 2007 budget this year. All the data is not available, but projections from the police indicate a 5% increase in expenses, but also a reduction in the required pension contribution. The net result is a $12,000 increase in police. That amount is actually covered by some excess budget for police MMO in the 2006 budget.

The big unknown in the 2007 budget is the Recycling bid. Currently the township pays the hauler about $84,000 to collect the recycling (this is in addition to what the hauler receives for the recyclables). We get about $16,000 back from the state. The money we get back from the state is your tax money as well, so while it helps the township, the recycling is a loser for the taxpayer AND most likely the environment. The market prices are telling us we are burning more resources in diesel fuel, wear on the roads, and trucks than the items we are recycling are worth. Of course no sane person would voluntarily do this, that is why recycling is mandated by our PA legislature. But I digress, back to the budget. Although expenses have been increasing, our tax revenue has also been increasing. The property tax received by the township has been increasing by 4-5% per year (with the rate held constant) and likewise the income tax increased by 9% from 2004 to 2005. We assumed (if there were no tax cut) a 4% property tax receipts increase and a 7% income tax increase in income tax receipts. The table below summarizes the assumptions made in the general fund:

The table shows the expected difference between 2006 and 2007 budget numbers. The emergency fund already has $160,000 from 2005 & 2006. Just to give you an idea hurricane Floyd cost the township $60,000. It seems a $160K emergency fund is reasonable. In spite of this, we plan to add $30,000 to the emergency fund in 2007.

Park & Recreation Fund:

Park & Rec was given a budget in 1999. At that time the community park was planned, and it was going to be expensive. The stream near Limestone Village had to be re-routed to make space for sports fields, and mitigate some flooding in some of the homes in the development. Land adjacent to the township land was purchased. Sports fields have been installed, the loan for the land has been paid off, the stream has been re-routed. A large pavilion has been built. There are two outstanding items for the community park. A concession stand and bathrooms. The board gave Park and Rec a target to cut their budget by $50,000. This cut does not harm the operating portion of the Park & Rec budget. It does decrease their savings for capital improvement from $50K to over $23,000.

Remember, these are budget GOALS. The goals require that our assumptions (i.e. recycling contract, etc.) are not too far off. The actual budget cut may not be 20%. The logic behind the cuts is that this money the township uses is yours, and while it is proper to use the money for the benefit of the taxpayers as a whole, when there is a surplus, it is best to allow the people to decide how to use their own money.

Reaction:

One would think that the prospect of a tax cut would be welcomed, and (in fact) the vast majority of the people I talk to do favor a tax cut. However, fairness dictates that I make you aware of some of the reaction opposing the tax cut. This meeting was poorly attended, but Joe Rudderow, Carl Weston, Mary Dymeck, Hether Quillman, Barry Higo, & Tony DeAngelis were among those present.

The reaction fell into two camps. There were those who did not want to see the tax cut because they preferred to increase spending. For example, Mary Dymeck said she wanted the taxes to continue in order to build a duplication of the Fleetwood Community Center. She resents having to drive to Fleetwood to borrow a book. Hether also weighed in on a community center. There was talk of indoor basketball courts, exercise rooms, etc. Essentially these people want the township to create “Body Zone” at taxpayer expense.

The second camp was also against the tax cut. Their reasoning was fear of the future (high commodity prices: gas, etc.) and the notion that we should not reduce taxes if we may have to raise them in the future. While the township is prudent in that we do have an emergency fund, how much is enough? Right now we have $160,000 with plans to increase to $190,000 (that's with the proposed cut). It is always possible to imagine scenarios where $160,000 or $1,600,000 is not enough. This line of thinking would never result in a tax cut, and would provide little discipline on future township spending.

Thoughts on Taxes:

(from the recent newsletter)

Does It Pass the G.T.M.A.G. Funding Test?

- Roy Timpe

Often people come to township meetings, or approach the supervisors individually asking for a program, or even a favor. It may be a township funded sports program, entertainment, or even the use of township equipment to maintain private property. The supervisors are going to want to know how the request stands up to the G.T.M.A.G. funding test. Before getting into this funding test, let me remind you that your township has no money of its own. That's right, your township has no money of its own. The township does not produce a product, and it does not grow any crops.

The township does absolutely nothing to “make money” in the sense that we Americans use that term. All the money the township has it gets from the residents at gun point. Let me explain. The township gets its money through taxation. Although the township makes efforts to get grants and other aid whenever available, most of those grants from the state are taxes you pay to the state. Truly, for most things grants are not available. The lion's share of township money comes through the property tax. Let's take the property tax as an example. If your mortgage company does not escrow your taxes, you receive a bill from Barbara Hassler. It looks like most other bills, but it is different. Just as an experiment, (and please do not actually try this at home) suppose you decide not to pay your property tax, and just continue to live your life. You go to work, the grocery store, etc. For some time your life will go on as it normally does. You will receive additional communication about your overdue property tax, but for the sake of this thought experiment, let's suppose you also ignore the further communication concerning your tax bill.

Eventually you will be confronted by a man with a badge and a gun. He will inform you that your house was sold at sheriff's sale, and you can no longer live there. There you have it. The unpleasant truth about these tax bills is that they are backed up by force. I mean real force. If you go door to door in this community, you'll find that we have everyone from young families raising children, to widows living on a fixed income. Now that we have just learned that our township Gets The Money At Gunpoint ( G.T.M.A.G. ) we can ask ourselves the question, “What things are worth getting the money from the widow at gun point?” The township contributes toward the volunteer fire and ambulance departments and provides police, roads, parks, water, sewer, building inspections, sports, and events. I would submit to you that the things that best pass the G.T.M.A.G. funding test are things that benefit the residents as a whole. Police, ambulance, fire protection and roads clearly fall into this category. Parks are less clear. Certainly there are some residents who may not use the parks, but a substantial majority use the parks and open space in some form. The water and sewer only benefit those who live near the service, but they are self funding. Only those who actually use the water and sewer pay for the service. Building inspections are also self funding, they are covered by the inspection fees. Most sports in the township are self funding, and actually are run by the residents. In the sports category, there are some small exceptions, like a summer YMCA program. This leaves events, like community days, the car show, and fireworks. These events are sponsored by the township, but the supervisors have insisted that the entry fees for the car show, and the booth rental for community days cover the cost of the event. This year the supervisors insisted that the fireworks be as self funding as possible by soliciting donations from local businesses.

For programs and events that do not benefit a vast majority of the residents, self funding is preferred. It altogether avoids the G.T.M.A.G. issue. The funny thing is, if I wanted my kid to play sports, and I went to my neighbors and forced them to pay a portion of it, that would be called theft. If I go to my township and get the supervisors to vote to force my neighbors to pay for my kids sports, that's called compassionate government.

The bottom line is, when you come to a supervisors meeting asking for the board to implement a program, or take action on an issue, ask yourself this question, “Does it pass the G.T.M.A.G. funding test?” You should ask this question, because that is the question this board is going to be asking itself.

Sewage Sludge Ordinance:

The supervisors have heard testimony on a sewage sludge ordinance. It is the intent that the draft ordinance mirrors the state regulations on spreading sewage sludge on farmland. The testimony took place at 6:30 before the June, July, and August meetings. We authorized the solicitor to review the testimony and draft any needed changes to the ordinance.

You can view copies of the meeting minutes here:

http://maidencreek.net/Supervisors/SupMinutes.html

I still have copies of the Fredrick Bastiat book “The Law” available to Maidencreek residents. Email me if you want one.

Paid for by Roy Timpe

email: Roy Timpe

Click here for the previous meeting

Back to Maidencreek Township Politics