March Meeting:
Sewage Sludge:
We held a public hearing on the sewage sludge ordinance March 8th It is the intention of ordinance (if adopted) to have the township have as much information on the sewage sludge being spread near our water shed as PA DEP does. We received more feedback on the reporting requirements section of the ordinance, and the lawyers will revise these sections. We intend to hold a hearing on the revisions at 18:30 (6:30 PM) before the April 12th meeting.
February School Board Meeting:
Township Supervisors were asked to attend a school board meeting to become familiar with the plans for a new elementary school, and a new athletic field. Robert Kopfer & I attended from Maidencreek, and two members of the Fleetwood borough council were also present. Richmond Township Supervisors were not present.
ACT 1 Ballot Question:
The meeting started with the ACT 1 ballot question. Paraphrased from memory, it states, “Should the Fleetwood School board impose a 1.1 % earned income tax, and use the revenue generated to give a $437 reduction in property tax?”
On the face of it, this measure would likely help retired persons in our community. The most recent census data shows that the median income for a family was $68,438. Since $437 divided by 0.011 is $39,727.27, the break even earned income is about $40,000 For some reason (unknown to me) the school's business director claimed the break even was $50,000. She said (paraphrased from memory) “ The break even is about $50,000. 1.1% of $50,000 is $550, and $550 is not that much more than $437, therefore, the break even income is about $50,000” I was tempted to point our that 1.1% of $40,000 is $440 which is only $3 more than $437, but I remained quiet. In any event, assuming most of the median family income of $68,438 is earned, and not from investments, it is in the self interest of most Maidencreek residents to vote against this. ACT 1 requires all school districts to place some sort of tax “reform” ballot question on the ballot this spring. However, ACT 1 should not be confused with meaningful tax reform. ACT 1 merely asks the voters which of their pockets they want picked. Meaningful tax reform would address the spending side as well.
If this ballot question were approved, it seems the school would end up with a boatload more money. With our median income at $68,000 and only $437 back in property tax, they would be receiving $748 in income tax from the median family, and only giving back $437. The school would be about $311 ahead on the median family. Since the median family is to pay more, and they are, by definition, in the middle, it's likely the school as a whole will receive much more money. However, ACT 1 is supposed to be nearly revenue neutral. Quoting from the Local Tax Study Commission Guide “At least 98% will be used to reduce local property taxes. Up to 2% can be used for school district operations.” I do not understand how the school would not end up way more than 2% ahead. It's likely the $437 number would have to increase to keep the school only 2% ahead. It seems we are only deciding which pocket is picked, and we're paying 2% for the privilege. As PJ O'Rourke would say, “Giving more tax money to politicians, is about as responsible as giving teenagers a bottle of whiskey and the car keys.”
The new Athletic Field:
The architect explained that we are to have a new athletic field with astro-turf surrounded by a synthetic track. When asked what the benefits were of the expensive field, and how it was decided that the field was needed, the architect replied that the athletic director asked for the field, and the new field and track would have higher utilization and lower maintenance than a grass field. When asked if a cost benefit analysis was done, to determine if the offset maintenance costs justified the expense of the synthetic turf, the architect said that no math was done.
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