October 29, 2001 Budget Workshop Meeting:
The 2002 budget has a $218,400 spending increase, about $111,000 of this increase is due to the regional police increase. The balance is due to capital expenditures for deferred maintenance items. The two most noteworthy of these are the roof of the township building, and equipment storage shed. The old shed (in Molltown) will have to be demolished, and a new shed built on the same property as the township building.
With nearly $220,000 in increased expenses, it is surprising this budget has only $85,000 in a tax increase (this equates to ¼ mill in property tax). This is due to our treasurer sharpening her pencil, and cutting costs wherever she could. The other reason for keeping the tax increase this low is a projected increase of $88,700 in the Earned Income Tax (EIT)
Those who attended the workshop meeting were witness to a weird juxtaposition of roles. In the past , Terry and Karl have usually been for tax increases while I have been against them. I favored a ½ mill tax increase while Terry and Karl preferred to try and get by with the ¼ mill. My fear is that the EIT will not increase as much as projected. With the post 9/11 economy in a slump and Agere Systems and Dana laying off so many, it seems likely the EIT projection may prove optimistic. The township does not receive EIT on severance pay or unemployment. I favored a larger tax increase. If the optimistic projections prove true any surplus could be used to help retire the nearly $170,000 debt the township has.
Terry and Karl did not see things that way. If indeed we are caught short, we will have to take a loan to cover costs and increase taxes more next year. I can support this budget, and completely agree with Terry and Karl's motive of not increasing taxes any more than needed. The only risk we face is higher overall costs of borrowing if EIT projections fall short.
Copies of the budget are available for your inspection at the Township Office
Please let me know your thoughts on the budget email: Roy Timpe
November 8, 2001 Maidencreek Supervisor's Meeting:
Township Employees to Join Teamster's Union:
At the budget workshop I was handed a letter from the Teamsters. The letter informed the supervisors that the township employees wanted to have the teamsters represent them in collective bargaining. The township has three choices in this situation.
Recognize the Union based on their request alone.
Ask for 3rd party verification of the signature cards.
Ask for 3rd party to hold a secret ballot election.
Since I have the same feelings for unions that a mongoose has for cobras, and it is possible for people to be unduly influenced by peer pressure, I favored the secret ballot option, but Terry and Karl favored the second option. I was out voted 2 to 1. I have found the township employees to be conscientious, and have some appreciation as to why they may want a union. It is my hope that this will never develop into an adversarial relationship. The supervisors and employees must work as a team.
Boy Scout Presentation:
Several boy scouts presented a sketch to convert the asphalt volleyball area in Maidencreek Estates to a regulation size street hockey court. David Snyder was present, and indicated the Park and Rec. budget could handle the modification. All members voted for the modification. This will involve increasing the size by 10 feet in both length and width.
David Snyder Resigns:
David Snyder also announced that due to a change in his career situation he is resigning from Park and Rec. I do appreciate David's dedication to the community.
U.S. Route 222:
I attended the 10/18/01 PenDOT meeting regarding Route 222. The limited access connecter to Adamstown will likely open in a year. The troubling thing is the $500,000 study of the northern section between our township to the county line. It has two main problems:
The study stops at the county line (just short of the Schantz road cut off to Fogelsville) This ignores the fact that 222 Route 100, and I-78 are all part of a system converging just west of Allentown.
The data for the study is all being collected before the Adamstown connecter is opening. I pointed out that this new connecter will change traffic patterns and invalidate the data.
Storm Water:
Mark Kutzmuller presented an updated draft of the storm water ordinance. The main change was abandoning the idea of a 50% blockage calculation for a 100% blockage calculation. This was largely due to the fact that the 50% blockage is hard to define (i.e. is it ½ the pipe from the bottom half or top half or sides? ) We instructed Mark to merge this draft with the existing storm water document. In the next meeting is it likely we will decide to advertise the draft for adoption in the January Meeting. My concern is the new proposed development for the Scheaffer tract be subject to this new ordinance.
More complete history of this issue is available at The Storm Water Zone.
Addendum on Tax analysis using 1990 and 2000 Maidencreek Census Data (added 11/22/01):
This issue was brought up again in the 11/8/01 meeting by Geoff Whaling and Supervisor elect Robert Kopfer. The availability of the year 2000 census data allows us to get a better handle on some of Kita's assumptions. Click here to see the 1990 data. (you may have to use your browser's back button to return here) For 2000 data click here. In 1990 we had 588 school aged children (aged 5 - 17 years) and 1,191 households. That is 49.4 children per 100 homes (actually less since we have a few more tax paying homes than we have households). The year 2000 data is broken down differently, but totaling the numbers we can get ages 5 through 19 at a total of 1,471 children. To arrive at an estimate of the school age children ages 5-17 (assuming they are roughly evenly distributed) multiply by 13/15. This yields as estimate of 1,275 school aged children (5-17 years) We now (year 2000) have 2,276 households. So we have about 56 school aged children per 100 homes. This neglects the effects of private. parochial, and home school. According to my earlier analysis, at $175,000 per house the school can break even at 56 kids per 100 homes. (This earlier analysis used Kita's assumption of $9,307 to educate one child. We know this is an average and adding a few more children costs little. It is only when we require more teachers and classrooms the cost jumps up.) The developer's sketch plan shows similar lot sizes to Walnut Tree Drive. These homes sell for around $200,000. The year 2000 census data shows the critics of our method of school funding (property tax) are right. I doubt all the township residential developments as a whole (isolated from the commercial) are breaking even. In order to do so the average house price in the township would have to be about $175,000. This particular residential development likely will. This is especially true once the commercial section of this development starts contributing to the tax basis.
paid for by Roy Timpe