November 10, 2005 Regular Meeting:
Budget (Codification, Fireworks and Per Capita Tax):
Per Capita Tax: This was covered in the budget workshop post. We directed the solicitor to draft the ordinance required to repeal the township per capita tax.
Codification: It looks like we will have enough money in the budget this year to codify the township ordinances. All the existing ordinances would be arranged topically in a code book. Currently they are arranged chronologically, and portions of older ordinances are superseded by newer ones. This current system requires a fair amount of research to determine what the township ordinances are on any one topic. Many companies would do a code book for the township, however, many of these companies want to lock the taxpayers into a proprietary format so that any future changes to the code book have to be done through the company. This would require the township to return to the same company to update the code book as the ordinances change. I think codification is a good idea, but I will not allow us to get locked into a proprietary format. The open document format worked on by the OASIS standards consortium is one possibility. I believe these standards have been adopted by other government organizations.
Seduction vs. Coercion (Funding Fireworks): At the workshop the supervisors discussed how to make the fireworks more self funding. Currently the car show and community days are self funding. These both were initially taxpayer subsidized, but the entry fee for cars and the rental fee on booths have made these self funding. I thought it would be nice the achieve the same for the fireworks display, the other supervisors tended to agree. We talked about a range of options (including charging admission). The best idea came from Gloria Kemmerer in the audience. We decided to keep the $4,000 for the fireworks display in the budget, and ask local business owners if they would be interested in sponsoring the display. The businesses could then be given mention in the township newsletter.
Mary Dymeck, a member of Park and Rec in the audience, objected to this. I explained that the township has no resources except to tax people, and that taxes are acquired at the point of a gun. If you decide not to pay your Park and Rec millage you will start a process. If you persist in not paying eventually the sheriff will sell your property, and a man with a badge and gun will visit you and tell you that you need to leave. Since this is how we fund things, it is necessary to ask what things are important enough to be funded by money collected at gun point? Most people would say police protection, fire protection, and roads. Very few would put a fireworks display in the same category. Notice that the supervisors were not saying that the fireworks would not be funded, just that we would try to get the funds through seduction (offering the businesses mention in the newsletter) rather than coercion (threat of sheriff's sale). I asked why anyone would object to taking the fireworks display off the taxpayer's plate? She responded that she feared the Park and Rec property tax millage would ultimately be reduced if too many Perk and Rec activities became self funding. There we get to the kernel of the matter. Mary said she wanted a Park and Rec funded community center. I indicated that for the past 6 years Park and Rec has been in a capital expansion mode. They have bought land, re-routed the stream (to create the park and protect property) and built the pavilion. Once the park has matured it is likely that the millage will go down. It is always possible that another project like a walking trail or even a community center will come to pass, but given the way the township get its money (coercion) we always need to ask the question, “What ought the township to do?”
Cement Plant:
Currently our ordinances require a land development plan for ANY change to a commercial structure. The cement plant asked for this to be waived so they could put a second floor on a pre-existing building to house electrical equipment. They were also increasing the floor space by a very small percentage. The board voted 2-1 to allow the waiver. I dissented, because these waivers are bad public policy. Waivers like this are only necessary because our ordinances are poorly written. The planning commission has been tasked with improving the situation. They have been trying to formulate an objective checklist of criterion that would exempt these types of small projects from land development. The planning commission went on a mini-strike when I said, in June, that I favored a limited government that protected the liberty of the residents. They sent a letter to the supervisors stating that they would stop work on revisions of these ordinances because they wanted to further restrict land use in the township. Since then we have had the general election, and it is my hope that we can get on with these improvements to the ordinances. Both my opponent and I said during the campaign that more commercial development in the township is desired. Ordinances that are reasonable, evenly enforced, and are foresighted enough to require a minimum of waivers are the best way to encourage that commercial development.
http://hometown.aol.com/maidenminutes/minutespg1.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