Traffic impact fee suddenly does not apply to Hamilton Crossings.

This is extremely disappointing. First, here is an article the Morning Call posted tonight. And here is the WFMZ article which delves just a little deeper. We have two issues:

1. The fact that this just came out now. These fees have been discussed as part of the township narrative regarding Hamilton Crossings for almost 3 years. How on earth can we just be discovering now that the fees don’t apply? I am having trouble wrapping my head around that.

Was all the talk about waiving the fees purely theater by the former BOC? Was this always just a bullet point to try to convince County Commissioners LMT had ‘skin in the game’? Was this always just posturing by township officials on behalf of the developer?

2. The ramifications of the township traffic impact fee ordinance. (TIFO)  The 2009 TIFO was enacted by the first appointed BOC so that the township could address traffic issues associated with hyper growth on a global scale. The alternative is to piece-meal improvements together one development at a time. Credit should be given to Commissioner Doug Brown who was one of the drivers of the impact fee.

Traffic Impact Fees: Here is a great 101

What the impact fee theoretically should have allowed us to do was collect a dedicated fee that could be used in various township wide (the study breaks the township into two zones) to address big picture traffic problems on a township wide scale. The problem is the 2010 board never seemed to have buy-in. It should never have been waived for the Jaindl rezoning and the Hamilton Crossings deal should never have been struck without accounting for it’s collection.

As an example to how the fee works. Hamilton Crossings has to (no matter what) mitigate the traffic caused by the center to get certain required PENNDOT approvals. This is the baseline for any project. It has to happen. But these improvements rarely address the regional issues or the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.

If we would collect the full 2.7 million dollar fee from Hamilton Crossings we could use that money to address the half dozen or so “pinch points” identified in the 2009 impact study. This allows us to address not only the problems directly adjacent to the center but problems that are a result of hyper growth in general. This money could be used right away or banked for 10 years or until the study is updated. (an update which is sorely needed since we’ve grown faster then the plan predicted)

So now that apparently the impact fee is all the sudden moot, I believe this is more reason that the township should not participate in the TIF and lose 50% of the new revenue over the next 20 years. This is most certainly money we will regret giving up 10 years from now when the township is reeling from congestion issues.

UPDATE: Paraphrased from a conversation with a member of the 2008 Traffic impact fee committee.

The seeds of the issue were planted in early 2008 when the court-appointed commissioners, following the recommendation of Commissioner Doug Brown, started the process to generate a transportation impact fee. I think that the intent to establish the fee may have been advertised, but a resolution creating the Transportation Impact Fee  Advisory Committee (TIFAC) was never presented or passed. The responsibility for this major error was never assigned to the Commissioners, nor to the then solicitor, (Blake Marles) Interim township manager or the paid TIFAC consultants.  After the advertisement of the ordinance in March 2009, Atty. Zator discovered the error, and all of the previous action of the TFIAC and township was nullified.As a note, this fee then was much larger than the one now in place. The township scrambled to restart the process correctly by creating the committee anew on April 16, 2009, but before it could, many development plans flooded in during the window of opportunity, thus avoiding any future impact fees. I was not aware that Hamilton Crossings plans was among them.
 

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 4/17

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

*Very light published agenda again this week. We rec’d a memo today however that Hamilton Crossings Traffic Impact fee will be discussed. I suggest those interested tune in. I will wait til tomorrow to comment on the impact memorandum that will be outlined by the Solicitor tonight. It is significant.

No hearings, announcements or presentations.

Communication:
LMT Historical Society – Letter of support for HC’s Log Home upgrades in exchange for taking of park land.

LCIDA – Formal letter indicates that the Lehigh County Industrial Authority will no longer actively seek County participation in the Hamilton Crossings TIF. More information here.

1 letter in opposition to TIF – Cites traffic concerns

1 letter in favor of township enacting a Homestead exclusion. More information about Homestead exclusion here. Please take a moment to read this proposal I made in January.

Continue reading

Development watch: Hamilton Crossings

Two items on tonight’s agenda dealing with Hamilton Crossings. First, it’s been determined that the County will not be participating in TIF. Moving forward the township must now decide if we are. Tonight, the timeline for moving forward to a vote on this issue will be outlined. The specific decision will be whether or not to hold a public hearing. This consists of authorizing staff to advertise so we can conduct a hearing sometime in May. (I will post  relevant dates when set) If approved at the May hearing we would consider two items:

1. The creation of the TIF district.
2. If Lower Macungie is to participate in the TIF district. |

Both items would be considered as proposed ordinances. These ordinances if supported would then be advertised for adoption sometime in June. At the same time the project will continue to move through land development process.

My thoughts: I am heading into the next 2 months with the mindset that the developer and those who support the TIF must make a case for it. The prior BOC which I did not sit on publicly supported TIF. They did this via a resolution asking Lehigh County to participate. (At the time the public narrative was all 3 district, county and township were needed for TIF to move forward. Apparently that is not the current interpretation.) If I were on the board last year I would have voted against the resolution of support.
Continue reading

Lower Macungie meetings now viewable on youtube.

We’ve had webcasts for awhile now in Lower Macungie, but the prior delivery method was unstable on some OS systems (I always had trouble on macs) and also was it  hard to fast forward and rewind and the feature sometimes didn’t work at all.

Starting this year the township has been uploading and archiving videos on a new youtube channel.

This accomplished two things:

1. Fast forwarding and rewinding is now alot easier so when referencing a corresponding agenda residents can find the topic they are looking for without having to watch the whole meeting.

2. You can now quickly find and reference past meeting videos archived on the townships youtube channel.

Also on this website, I maintain an archive of my meeting previews, links to the agenda detail and meeting videos organized chronologically

 

A way to reduce primary residence taxes. Homestead exception.

Last weekend I blogged about the reasons Lower Macungie was forced to address a budget shortfall this past December. This week I am going to write a little bit about one mechanism I proposed as a candidate and formally in January we can employ to address this issue moving forward.

First I wanted to talk a little about a barrier that prohibits a place like Lower Macungie to deal with the impacts of sprawling commercial and Industrial growth. An issue that will further compound moving forward.

Reality is different land uses have different impacts and liabilities associated. Unfortunately, in PA we have a uniformity clause. Some states do, some don’t. Those that do have varied interpretations. As a consequence of PA’s strict interpretation, residential and commercial property cannot be treated differently for purposes of taxing absent specific provisions providing for exceptions. This is problematic because it prohibits localities to assess taxes based on new impact created. This issue is amplified in a township with a large inventory of distribution warehouses that are already and will continue to create costly liabilities and may someday be the driving force leading us to a local police force or 3rd fire station.

How does this fit into the smart growth philosophy I  subscribe to?

I believe greenfield development should pay it’s own way. We must be vigilant against direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies for land use patterns that fail to generate the revenue needed to mitigate new liabilities. Downstream impacts should be also accounted for beyond the 1st lifecycle. Oftentimes as political “feathers in a cap” localities negotiate one time windfalls of up front improvements. Unfortunately, rarely is the math done to see if new revenues are enough to maintain new infrastructure over multiple life-cycles. This is shortsighted.

The solution? A local homestead/farmstead exemption. You may already be familiar with this via state and school district programs. Local government can also take advantage of this program.

A local homestead/farmstead exemption is one provisional exception to the uniformity rule. The program is a way to target property tax relief for primary residences and farmland.  By enacting a homestead exclusion program the township can allow reductions in the assessed value of a primary residences or farmland property. This reduces the local property tax burden on these types properties. The homestead exclusion provides a tax reduction to all eligible properties in the taxing jurisdiction. Most importantly this applies to all primary owner occupied residences including, condominiums, single family homes.

There are 7 municipalities in Montgomery County who utilize this program on the local level. One example is Upper Gwynedd. An exclusion allows for real property tax relief of up to one half of the median assessed value of homesteads in the taxing jurisdiction. For example:

  • Under LMT’s current .33 mil property tax if you own a home at the township average of around 250,000 dollars your tax liability is 82.50. (Remember, that is local LMT tax not school or County)
  • Under a homestead exclusion program that grants a 50% assessment reduction on a primary residence the assessed value (for purposes of tax calculation only) is cut in half to 125,000. Therefore the tax bill is also reduced by half to 41.25.
  • Meantime Commercial properties such as a distribution warehouses valued at 24,000,000 pays the full assessed value at .33 mil which would be 7,900.00 dollars.

It’s reality that certain types of land uses like strip malls and distribution warehouses hurt quality of life and command the most resources. This is exacerbated when they are located on sprawling former agriculture fringe parcels such as the Jaindl Spring Creek Property which will unfortunately require bran new roads, infrastructure and improvements. Even portions initially funded by the school district and developer will have to be maintained in perpetuity by the township representing an ongoing liability. To me it’s a matter of fairness. Land uses that cause impacts are the ones that should pay for the impacts.

I have asked the Board of Commissioners to consider a homestead exclusion program as one way to reduce the tax burden for primary residences and farmland within the township. This would also allow us to right size taxes on commercial and industrial entities to make sure they are “paying there own way” so that residents aren’t forced to indirectly subsidize them.

The Quiet Boom and Bust of PA Townships

The following appeared in an op-ed this AM in The Morning Call. I wanted to re-post as it succinctly sums up the reality Lower Macungie recently began to face with a tax increase in response to a budget deficit. I’m hoping we continue serious discussions about how got to this point and what we can do to keep taxes sustainably low over the long run proactively. The alternative is reacting to shortfalls and never addressing underlying issues.

To do this it’s important we understand how we got to where we are. This post is a preface to a post I’m doing later on in the week where I’ll outline some items I think are a part of the solution. This post deals with how we got to where we are. 

By Gerald E. Cross – Pennsylvania Economy League.

Since the 1970s, Pennsylvania’s cities have grabbed headlines as they sank into a financial morass while the state’s townships quietly prospered.

But recent data indicates that the once booming townships – where almost half of state residents live – are also seeing troubling signs including rising service costs and tax revenue that is either declining or flattening.

The challenge for townships may soon be the same issue facing distressed cities: how to provide quality services at a price that taxpayers can afford. By recognizing that challenge now, townships can begin to implement measures to avoid severe financial problems in the future.

Pennsylvania Economy League research clearly shows the explosion of tax revenue collected by townships beginning in the 1970s as residents fled the cities and took their wealth to townships.

For well over 30 years, Pennsylvania’s third-class cities experienced an exodus that dropped population by almost 20 percent. In contrast, population grew by almost 50 percent in second class townships, where residents moved to take advantage of new housing developments.

As people left the cities, income from taxes began to decline. Meanwhile, townships were increasingly able to capture additional revenue as both population and the earnings of that population expanded.

Real estate tax collection and real estate transfer taxes in townships jumped from the development boom. Officials in these communities had the advantage of revenue increases that were the result of natural growth rather than a politically sensitive property tax hike.

In addition, escalating earned income tax revenue contributed an increasingly larger amount to township budgets so there was less need to rely on property taxes, in contrast to cities, where property taxes are the dominate source of tax dollars.

Cities not only lost earned income taxes from those who left – many of whom were higher income residents – they also saw declining revenues as the remaining population aged, retired and no longer had to pay earned income taxes.

Meanwhile, as populations moved from urban areas, the taxable property values in cities did not increase at the same rate as the townships, and in some cases decreased. Cities were also hurt by the lack of readily developable land that limited easy expansion of the property tax base. The result was a decline in property tax dollars. Revenue sources are not the only difference between cities and townships. Cities spend the bulk of their money on public safety costs including police and fire protection. In some cities, total tax revenue alone has failed to keep pace with the cost of police and fire expenses. 
Townships spend more of their money on roads and public works. Still, township spending on general administration and police has increased, indicating possible problems down the road if revenues stagnate.

The trend can already be seen. Earned income tax in townships peaked just prior to the 2008 economic crash and is now either declining or leveling off. Real estate transfer revenue crested in 2005 and 2006. Townships that heavily relied on those tax sources to increase services and avoid a property tax hike may now have to look to other revenues.

To meet the challenge of sustaining public services, townships should explore more regional options to both provide and pay for them. By recognizing the fiscal trends, townships can work now to implement corrective actions in an attempt to avoid the dire financial predicament currently faced by Pennsylvania’s cities.

 

The above scenario has played out in Lower Macungie. The past 20 years we’ve artificially kept taxes low through hyper growth. This year for the first time we faced our new reality of a capital budget deficit and spent reserves. The simple truth is we’re slowly but surely running out of space to plow and we no longer can rely on the windfall one time revenue of growth.

For decades we lived in a fantasy land of a bloated rainy day fund and one time windfalls. Fast forward to today: The one time revenues we’ve relied upon are dried up. We’ve peaked on the EIT front. Real estate transfer will see a small increase as the economy picks up but never will we again see the windfalls of the 90’s. We’ve got the 10,000 lb gorilla of police coverage. Whether 5 or 10 years from now someday we’ll have to address it. Our “rainy day fund” is now drawn down to near minimum acceptable levels. Developers who installed up front infrastructure have long since left town and it’s up to us to fund continuing maintenance and future improvements.

 

Add to this market factors. We simply aren’t currently positioned to compete for young professionals since they want compact walkable communities. The senior market is shrinking and we have a bloated inventory with more on the way.

 

We’re clearly at a crossroads and faced with a choice. Choice 1 is: Bury our heads in the sand. Shoehorn the last open space parcels in the township and continue to chase ratables, developer contributions and one time windfalls. Which in this new housing market equals low quality apartment complexes. But in the end it’s simply delaying and compounding the inevitable while simultaneously selling our quality of life down the flooding creek.
Choice 2 is:  Continue the tough conversations now and get creative. Think outside the box and figure out how we move this township forward delivering the services residents demand with a stable and predictable LOW tax rate.
This is now beyond quality of life concerns. This is about financial solvency moving forward. This is a preface to a blog I’ll write later on this week. I have proposed one possible solution that I’ll outline Thursday. Remember there is a no magic bullet but I think it can be a piece of the puzzle. Stay tuned.

Act 111 reform is needed in Pennsylvania

Last night, the Lower Macungie Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted unanimously to continue with Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) as our primary police provider. This decision came after conducting a comprehensive crime study. Results show we have the 7th lowest crime rate of Pennsylvania’s 35 largest townships. Our rate is 1/3 of Lehigh County’s average.

We have the luxury of basing a decision on data. We’re statistically a safe community and PSP does an outstanding job. Someday however, our community will have to address the method by which we secure coverage. This will happen either when A. crime data rises or B. state requires municipalities pay for PSP. This may happen in 5 years or it may happen in 20 years. No one knows.

Understanding some day we’ll face this decision we must consider all the factors involved. One of those factors is efforts to reform Act 111. Act 111 outlines how municipalities are required to negotiate legacy costs that make local police/fire departments financially unsustainable. 41 percent of Pennsylvania’s population live in municipalities facing fiscal distress. Local police/fire services are the single biggest cost item in many local budgets.

Act 111 arbitration awards contribute to escalating costs by handcuffing local governments. The act requires unions and municipalities to engage in binding arbitration during contract disputes. While the intent is good, the mechanism is 45 years old and needs reform. Act 111 gives unions unfair advantages – reaping large settlements that cost us all.

Until reforms are addressed as one member of the 5 person BOC I am wary about taking Lower Macungie down a path where issues like this are front and center where unelected outside arbitrators have so much power. Someday we’re going to have to address the potential of a local force. Until then it’s a concern that we don’t enter the township into a flawed system 

Here are two examples where Act 111 has led to financial stress and tax increases:

1. In 2013 after a 19 month Act 111 process paid for by Borough taxpayers, an unelected “neutral” arbitrator with no ties to the community rendered a ruling that forced Chambersburg to hike taxes. Here, Act 111 prohibited a locally elected council from managing their paid fire department in the best interests of their residents.  Read more here: From town council to the citizens of Chambersburg Borough.

2. Last year Bristol Twp. was forced into Act 111 Arbitration seeking relief from $85.8 Million in unfunded liabilities including $77 Million in Post-Retirement Health obligations. Bristol received nothing from an unelected arbitrator to help reduce crippling legacy costs. The union was awarded 4% and 3.5% raises. Today the township has 10 less Police officers than it did in 2012. Unfunded liabilities have now increased to $91 Million. The can was kicked down the road and the underlying issues were left.

Act 111 has serious consequences for communities. It removes what should be exclusively local decisions from residents and their elected officials. The system requires municipalities to negotiate in good faith but unions don’t. Everyone wants to see fire and police professionals treated fairly. The intent of Act 111 is good, but as it stands today it’s a 45-year-old outdated law in desperate need of modernization.

There are those seeking fair reform of Act 111. I support these efforts. Our State Senator Pat Browne (R) 16 is one of them signing on as a co-sponsor of SB 1111. The bill was crafted by Sen. John Eichelberger, (R) Blair, chairman of the Senate Local Government Committee.

Senator Browne addressed his position in a statement:After 45 years, it is appropriate that the General Assembly take a comprehensive look at the local government collective bargaining process to ensure it strikes the proper balance between the rights of our important municipal police and firefighters and the taxpaying public,” Senator Pat Browne said. “We should ensure that when labor contract decisions are taken out of the hands of local elected officials and placed in arbitration that the process maximizes transparency and thoroughly considers the implications that any prospective reward will have on both municipal financial sustainability and public safety employment attraction/retention.

This is a large part of what SB 1111 addresses. Highlights of SB 1111 reforms include:

  • Penalize either party for failing to engage in good faith bargaining;
  • Must show ability to pay through justification and consideration of new costs;
  • Start arbitrator selection process between both parties by coin toss;
  • Expand the list from which a neutral arbitrator is selected from 3 to 7;
  • Require the cost of arbitration be shared equally between both parties;
  • Codify the avenues of appeal of an award by either side.
  • Require evidentiary hearings to be open to the public (sunshine law);
  • Prohibit post-retirement health care and pension benefits from being subjects of collective bargaining.

These reforms will inject much needed fairness into the Act. 111 process.

As an elected local municipal official I often have to deal with mandates that take away our ability to make the right decisions for residents of Lower Macungie. I believe that Act 111 reform is essential. The effort currently has widespread bi-partisan support from municipal leaders, business leaders and community development organizations such as the Pennsylvania Economy League, Coalition for Sustainable Communities and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners.

Essential upgrades for walkable Willow Ln Elementary

Enhanced safety features ensure safe walking routes for students and parents at Willow Lane

Here are some enhanced safety features I think need to be considered before students are permitted to walk to Willow Lane Elementary next year. Here is a link to the walkability study conducted by PA safe routes to school. The study makes dozens of recommendations which in my opinion should be considered the bare minimal acceptable improvements to the 3 designated walking routes. I would like to see the following additional safety features considered by township and district officials in an effort to go above and beyond the bare minimum.

1. Lighted LED crosswalks similar to ones installed on Main. St. in Macungie.

Lights are embedded in the pavement on both sides of the crosswalk and oriented to face oncoming traffic. When the pedestrian activates the system by using a push-button, the lights flash warning motorists that a pedestrian is in the vicinity of the crosswalk ahead. These should be installed where appropriate at the busiest intersections.
Cost: Ranging from 5000-12,000 per system

2. Stalker Boards in conjuction with flashing 15 MPH school zone signage.

Stalker boards are electronic signs that display the speed of motorists as they drive past a point. Completely self contained these units are proven to significantly reduce speeds in school zones. These should be used in conjuction with flashing yellow lights and 15mph zones. (See photo)
Cost: Ranging from 6,000-10,000

3. Raised crosswalk/Pedestrian Medians

At crossing points where guards will not be located on connector roads and interior driveways on district property raised cross walks or pedestrian refuges should be installed as a traffic calming and pedestrian safety device.
Cost: Raised Crosswalk-$2,500-$7,000

To stay informed on upcoming township meetings where walkability is addressed “like” us on facebook! www.facebook.com/friendslmt

Allen Organ Supermarket and 200+ Apartments is back.

It’s back. Except it’s no longer being characterized as a smart growth mixed use project as it once was. (But never really was…) Now it’s being billed as exactly what it really is. A supermarket and a gas station paired with 200 apartments on 30 some acres. The project would be the highest density in the township.

This property is located in the Corn Field between Mack Trucks and Borough of Macungie aside of and behind the Allen Organ offices. Township Commissioner Ron Eichenberg happens to be the realtor on the project.

What this is, is a high density residential project next to a high density commercial parcel. In fact one of the Planning Commissioners mentioned what I mentioned a couple months ago. What this is, is the Trexlertown Mall. Note those apartments have currently devolved into HUD housing.

Though the project has stayed essentially the same the developer is no longer seeking the new mixed use ordinance it once was. Special accommodations would have to be made since there is currently no zoning that allows this kind of development. Basically the township needs to go out of it’s way to allow this.

Many members of the planning commission were absent, so no official action was taken. Will keep an eye on this one.

Notes:

The developer mentioned improvements to intersection will alleviate traffic issues – My question here is. Currently, there are no traffic issues. Traffic flows great at the intersection of Willow Lane and Rt. 100. Traffic issues might be created by this project, but currently there are none. This project would have 1 entrance in and out dumping 100% of the traffic onto Rt. 100.
“Just because you buy the junkiest land in the township doesn’t mean you should get special exceptions” – PCom member Maury Robert
“Little uncomfortable with the highest density in the township, should we really have developments exceeding 8 units per acre?” – Pcom member Tom Beil

Parks & Rec comprehensive plan kickoff meeting 9/17!

Parks & Rec comprehensive plan kickoff meeting 9/17!

  

Next Monday September 17th will be the Township Parks & Recreation comprehensive plan kickoff meeting! The township recieved a grant to fund planning as part of the Greenway Project. Lower Macungie Township has been the fastest growing municipality in Pennsylvania for the last decade with tremendous residential growth resulting in a population change of approximately +12,000 residents since 2000 representing a 40% increase.

Why now: The last Comprehensive Recreation Plan was prepared in 2000 prior to the most recent population surge. Currently the township owns28 parks and most of the 500 year floodplain surrounding the Little Lehigh River and Swabia Creeks. (Credit should be given to previous supervisors and township leadership for aggressively collecting floodplain over the years.) Since the last plan we have also constructed the community center and hired a Recreation Director.

Since so much has changed so rapidly in the township over the last 10 years a comprehensive review of our Parks system makes alot of sense at this time. For ex. I’ve been extremely supportive of creating a township supported dog-park funded largely by private donations and fundraising. This is a great example of an idea that can be explored within the context of reviewing all 28 of our township parks to find the best potential future home for a possible dog park.

Outcomes: As part of this review we’ll be able to assess any needs our community may have that aren’t currently being served, the strengths of our system and identify any weaknesses. It’s important to note our current Parks and Recreation committee has done an excellent job over the past few years identifying a 5 year plan and budgeting for on-going park maintenance. The upcoming comprehensive review will only give the committee more resources and strenghten their ongoing efforts by tying the process into the larger budget picture more clearly.

Participate! We need the public to come to the kickoff meeting! It will be held at 6pm on Monday the 17th. There will be opportunities to voice your feedback, thoughts and your take on the future direction of our parks system. I hope to see you there!