July 18, 2002 Maidencreek Meeting:
Recycling (to include trash or not to include trash):
The state of Pennsylvania is requiring Maidencreek to have a township wide recycling plan. There is no choice in the recycling plan. We must have one. We do have choice on the small things, such as what items will be recycled, how many pick ups per month etc.
The issue of including trash is up to the supervisors. Gloria was against adding trash all along. I must admit I was tempted by the efficiency of only having one trash truck roll down the road once a week rather than five or so. Bob, as I recall was open minded to either position. We decided to get your advice on this issue through the news letter.
The response from the newsletter insert was good. As of 7/18/02 the results were:
|
Do you favor including trash pick up with mandatory recycling? |
|
|
YES |
37 |
|
NO |
119 |
|
Sheets Received not marked YES or NO |
3 |
When I ran for this office my postcards and hand outs had this statement, "Government at all levels should limit its activities to protecting the rights of the people. At the township level, this means assuring that residents are able to enjoy the fruits of their labors and be good stewards of their property. The township should act zealously to protect these liberties of the residents, including (when necessary) interceding on their behalf with the State or County."
You have convinced me through your conversations, flyer comments, and emails that it more consistent for me to keep the trash hauling private. You as residents can be assured of the best plan and best service by the current system. When you alone can choose to change your haulers, he will be most responsive to your needs. I admit I was tempted by the efficiency gains of a one size fits all plan. However, your responses to the newsletter clearly show that even among the 37 who favor a township wide plan, there is no agreement on what that plan should be (i.e. by the bag, once per week, twice per week etc.). There will be a workshop meeting on recycling 8/6/2002. There is no support among the three supervisors to include trash pick up.
Shorter Meetings:
This month we tried a new agenda in an effort to have a shorter meeting. The meeting still ended at midnight. General public comment was moved to new business. (The public is always welcome to comment on specific motions being discussed.) The trouble is many members of the public had left by the time for the general public comment.
Clearly one meeting per month is not enough. I am reluctant to have our professional staff at two meetings. This would increase costs. The open public comment often results in several motions. I am considering having a workshop meeting before the business meeting. We can have open public comment at the workshop meeting. We could also have the police report, and road report. In other words, all the stuff that usually does not involve the solicitor or engineer. The output of this meeting would be several proposed motions. These proposed motions would then be communicated to the engineer, and solicitor via email. The proposed motions from the workshop would then be voted on at the regular business meeting. The professionals would be aware of the issues, and be prepared to give their advice. There would be no general public comment at the regular meeting only public comment on each motion as it comes up for vote.
In effect, if you had an issue for the supervisors you would attend the workshop to get your issue into the form of a motion to be placed on the agenda at the next regular meeting.
The Meadowbrook Development:
The issue of utility easements. The water authority (MTA) wanted an easement and utility stubs pointing from the Meadowbrook development into the neighboring farm. The purpose of the easement is to provide better infrastructure to support the future development of the neighboring farm, or any development beyond the farm. Bob Kopfer was clearly against this. Gloria felt the stubs and easement were a good idea, since it would save the property owner the hassle of having their yard dug up if the neighboring farm were to develop. Gloria's position would also likely save the Maidencreek residents money in the event of development on or beyond the farm. I voted for the Meadowbrook development based on respecting the rights of the land owners. I see Gloria's argument that providing at least the easement is good planning. However, the existence of the easement can be used as an argument to re-zone the neighboring farm. I think the township is obliged to respect the property rights of citizens, but the township is not obliged to make development of the farm land easier. I sided with Bob on this issue. It may well be that at some future time MTA will for technical reasons be required to purchase this easement. Gloria may well be right on this issue. My decision may in the final analysis cost the residents more money to purchase an easement that we could have gotten at this time for free. On the other hand, maybe the property will never be developed, and Bob and I will have made the right choice.
A little later in the meeting Gloria made a motion for conditional approval of the Meadowbrook plan. One of the conditions was MTA approval. I voted for the conditional approval. I did not realize that Gloria intended the easements to be included with the MTA conditional improvements. I thought that issue had been decided earlier by Bob and me. Our mistake was not breaking the easement and the approval into separate votes.
Martin Retirement Village:
Additional sewage has been found to be leaking. The board authorized the solicitor to prosecute this matter before the District Justice.
The Community Park and East Wesner Rd.
The previous board had voted to start construction on the community park. The park has several goals. It will provide fields for recreation, and the new topography and stream relocation will prevent flooding in the Limestone Village development. A look at earlier meetings will show that I had concerns over the stream relocation. I wanted a design review by a specialist in hydrology. I was out voted, and we have the stream relocation. The stream relocation is proving to be a maintenance issue. Any how, we went out for bids on the grading of the rest of the park. We have accepted the low bid for the grading of the park, but the bids assume Wesner road will be abandoned. This will require a public hearing. Bob Kopfer pointed out that abandoning the road will likely cause more cut through traffic in the developments. The park would be much different with out the road being abandoned. Anyhow, your supervisors are going to hold a public hearing on abandoning the road. The decision is in no way made. Please come to the meetings, or email your opinion of the Wesner Road issue. Abandoning the road yields a bigger park, but more cut through traffic. Leaving the road yields a smaller park (near a busy road), but safer neighborhood streets. We have asked the Operations Director to get us traffic data before the hearing. The hearing will be sometime in the next two months.
paid for by Roy Timpe