March 12, 2002 Northern Berks Police Meeting:
The 2002 contract is tentatively settled. The township has rescinded its letter of intent to withdraw from Northern Berks. We need to continue to find ways to reduce costs for our police coverage, but it seems doubtful the supervisors are going to be in a position to undertake significant change at this time.
One of the big issues was the pension. In 1984 there was a pension Act 205 mandating police pensions. To fund this mandate, the state has taxed out of state insurance companies. This money is available for pension plans that meet state Act 600 criterion. Some time in the past one of the commissioners negotiated pension provisions that did not comply with the state guidelines. Our local police department receives some $65,000 from the state for the pension yearly. There was a concern by the current commissioners that this state contribution would be in jeopardy. It was this issue that delayed the contract for so long.
Let me tell you about police pensions in general. Our state has over 1,400 miniature pension plans. The service requirement is 25 years. Many officers do not spend 25 years in one department, but rather jump around every 7-10 years. As a result, many officers can finish their career without a pension. Also, since all the pension plans are so small, only the larger departments have statistics working for them. For example, the average 40 year old would die at age 83. If you have enough 40 year olds in your pension plan and you make sure they are funded until age 83, your plan is fine. In a small department like ours, we will, at most, have a few people on the pension plan. This makes the plan like an auto insurance company that insures three cars. If nobody has accidents, we're all okay. But it's very easy for such a plan to get into trouble. So what the police need is a larger population - perhaps state wide - to participate in the pension plan to get the benefit of statistics, and they need portable plans so they're not left high and dry at the end of their careers. There is a resolution in the Pennsylvania house to appoint a committee to study these issues. It is House Resolution 123, printers number 1343. Please write State Rep. David Argall and State Sen. Mike O'Pake and ask them to support this resolution.
March 14, 2002 Maidencreek Meeting:
There was much on the agenda. The meeting went 5 hours starting at 7:00 PM. What follows are some of the highlights.
Bedrock Stone and Mulch:
At the last meeting the plan expired for Bedrock Stone and Mulch. (To be more precise we rejected the plan, because our time to act was about to expire and he had not provided us with enough information.) He also failed to ask for an extension. As a result the memorandum of understanding that was allowing his business to function during the planning process also expired. He appeared at the meeting to complain, and ask about reinstating the memorandum. I voted for the original memorandum. Gloria was very prepared for this issue. She had in her notebook letters written in October of last year from the engineer to Bedrock advising him of his best course of action. He failed to heed that advice. She also stated that she believed the original memorandum was a mistake, and was glad to see it expire. Gloria has a good point here. While I voted for the original memorandum, this project was showing signs of dragging on endlessly. The memorandum eliminated the incentive for the owner to move ahead with the planning. We also have had many complaints from neighbors about the mulch operation. The net result is, for now if he operates out of that property, he will be fined. He can start the planning process anew, but it will be without the memorandum.
Martin Retirement Village:
March 14 was the deadline for the ultimatum on the Martin Sewer leak. Mr. Martin had not produced the Letters of Credit (LOCs) or the Construction schedule required by our ultimatum. (see 2/14/02 meeting for more information). He would have experienced the threatened injunction, however, he did have a letter from the bank indicating the LOCs were to be approved on 3/15/02. The board decided to have the solicitor delay the injunction for a few days until the outcome of the bank's meeting was known. The solicitor informed me on 3/15/02 that the bank has approved the LOCs and the LOCs should be in place by 3/25/02 and the schedule should be in place by 3/19/02. If this indeed happens, Martin would be in compliance with the ultimatum eleven days late. Eleven days is annoying, but it is not too long to wait to avoid troubling Martin's renters. It is they who would be the innocent victims if an injunction were needed.
Billboards:
Lamar Advertising has filed applications for 12 billboards in our community. In the 3/1/02 special meeting the township took the strongest action possible to have input into these billboards. The solicitor recommended a curative amendment. Since 3/1/02 our code enforcement officer along with the solicitor have carefully read the ordinances, and believe that Billboards can be granted by special exception in areas zoned Industrial, and C2. Upon the solicitor's recommendation the curative amendment was rescinded. If the solicitor's interpretation of the ordinances prevails, it seems there will be about 5 new billboards, and not 12.
This issue will come before the zoning hearing board. The supervisors authorized the solicitor to represent the township at the zoning hearing board meeting.
Bids:
There were bids received for road work and a truck. Motions were made in both cases to accept the low bid pending review of the operations director, Terry Manmiller, and the engineer. EJB was low bid on the roads, and Manderback Ford was low bid on the truck. We learned that Bob Kopfer prefers GMC trucks to Fords, and I prefer Fords to Chryslers. Gloria did not tip her hand as to which of the big three automakers she prefers.
Meadowbrook Subdivision:
Maidencreek Plaza came with their plan and requests for several waivers. It was decided to widen Schaeffer Road near the entrance to the development to provide "turning" lanes so people entering and exiting the development do not impede the through traffic. Slant Curbing was approved in lieu of vertical curb.
The two major issues were the height of the berm on the retaining ponds, and whether the ponds and adjacent land (including flood plane and wet land) would be accepted by the township or retained by a homeowner's association. Basically this is a question of Public vs. Private. As I see it the pros and cons are as follows:
Private
The land in question could be made into a park for the use of the Meadowbrook residents. They could decide the nature of the park (i.e. chip and put, soccer field etc.) The residents could (by a restrictive covenant in their deed or other such mechanism) be required to join a homeowner's association. The association would maintain the land and the retaining ponds.
pros:
This association could be used as a selling point for the developer.
The "tragedy of the common" that has occurred on public land in the township would be avoided. Similar land elsewhere in the township owned by the township has become sites for dumping of debris that clog culverts etc. This is the "tragedy of the common" since no one has a sense of ownership for the common land. The Meadowbrook development would be small enough that the residents would have a sense of ownership.
With the association owning the land there would be no chance of other taxpayers in the township subsidizing this development in the form of storm water, or park. Taxpayer subsidy of other developments has occurred in the past, and needs to be avoided.
cons:
If the residents failed to maintain their retention ponds, the township would have to intervene. If the township failed to intervene, residents downstream of Meadowbrook would suffer.
The private park may cause friction with the residents of adjoining developments.
My View:
I tend to favor the private ownership solution, for many of the same reasons I favored the rezoning to allow the development . It places the most control in the hands of the land owner, in this case, the development's residents. The developer wants the public solution. I am, however, concerned that if the homeowner's association did not do a good job in maintaining the ponds it is their downstream neighbors that would suffer and not they themselves. I would welcome input from you on this public vs. private open space issue.
Pool in Maidencreek:
A resident wrote a letter about a public pool in the township. I would refer you to my earlier writing on this issue.
Planning Commission Vacancy:
Gloria Kemmerer has resigned from the Planning Commission. This creates a vacancy. Interested people should contact the supervisors. You can e-mail me via the link below.
paid for by Roy Timpe