You may have either seen LAT resident Stephanie Herr's letter to the editor in The Patrot-News or on an earlier blog post. Regardless, in the interest of keeping the dialogue fresh, I'll offer a few comments and observations.
The following is my point-by-point response to Ms. Herr's letter, with the highlighted text quoted directly from same:
I'm angered in reading of a proposed 25 percent tax increase in Lower Allen Twp. (news article, Dec. 9), but also looking for some additional explanations from our commissioners regarding the ill-timed spending affiliated with our new township building.
I didn't want to vote for the increase any more than Ms. Herr wanted to read about it, but I believed then and still believe today it is in the best interests of LAT. Additional explanations follow.
In visiting the blog page of Commissioner Dan Crist [sic], he does a good job of giving a breakdown of exactly what areas of revenue have lagged behind, even giving us 2007 vs. 2008 figures.
Thank you.
What he does not address is what areas of spending have increased in 2008.
Some expense areas increased from the 2008 to the 2009 budget, and some decreased. The broad general fund expenditure categories, as they are listed in Ordinance 2008-09:
- General Government: 2009 budget, $1,414,464; 2008 budget, $1,381,015; change, $33,449, 2.4%
- Public Safety: 2009 budget, $4,314,285; 2008 budget, 4,262,982; change, $51,303, 1.2%
- Public Works: 2009 budget, $879,498; 2008 budget, $688,604; change, $190,894, 27.7%
- Parks & Recreation: 2009 budget, $445,171; 2008 budget, 584,852; change, -$139,681, -23.9%
- Insurance: 2009 budget, $73,758; 2008 budget, $67,053; change, $6,705, 10%
- Total General Fund Expenditures including miscellany: 2009 budget, $7,182,478; 2008 budget, $7,203,056; change, -$20,578, -0.2%
The line-by-line detail is available for anybody to see at the Township office. If anybody has questions about specific items, I'll be happy to carry those questions to LAT staff and provide answers.
I think had he done that, we may see that our multimillion-dollar, fancy new municipal building which sits on Gettysburg Road has actually added to severe increases in spending that township residents really could not afford.
LAT is spending more to maintain its new municipal building than it spent to maintain its old municipal building. That's a fact.
The aggregate budget line items grouped under the header Municipal Building increased to $247,316 on the 2009 budget as compared to $176,953 on the 2008 budget. For that additional $70,363 we are managing two facilities for 12 months instead of managing one building while constructing a second and occupying it in the middle of the year.
Aside from operating two buildings, utilities are driving the increased expense. From the 2008 to the 2009 budget, utilities - most notably electricity - increased by $59,520 from $48,500 to $108,202.
As far as Ms. Herr's comment about the "fancy new building," anybody who has toured the building knows that is an exaggeration. It's very nice. But fancy? No.
The new building provides a contemporary workspace and amenities for a full-time, professional staff on a footprint designed to expand with a growing township. The old building was cramped and dingy, with staffers shoehorned into wiring closets - I saw this with my own eyes - with a truck bay housing fire engines sporting a cracked concrete floor, with no room to expand with the township, and with a wholly dysfunctional, labyrinthine layout.
This project was conceived, begun, and completed during a time of economic downturn.
I began attending LAT meetings in early 2005. "This project" was already well underway by then.
In fact, LAT staff and commissioners had been studying the workspace problem for some time. The location had been previously determined with regard to the rail crossing below the Norfolk Southern line on Carlisle Road. So when PennDOT approached the Township in 2004 with several parcels of land it wanted to sell, LAT was presented with an opportunity too good not to pursue.
Astute regional observers know the commercial real estate market hasn't been this bad for long. As recently as mid-2006 when the old Lemoyne borough building sold for almost a half million dollars, all indications pointed to LAT being able to unload 1993 Hummel Av. quickly and profitably.
The recent "economic downturn" laid waste to those plans, unfortunately.
Of course, in the spirit of engaging in scare tactics, Mr. Crist [sic] immediately tells us that the only way to prevent this tax increase is for the township to cut services, including taking two officers off the street.
Scare tactics? Please.
If I'd want to scare the readers of L.A.W.L., I'd highlight two points:
1.) Plummeting revenues
As I've pointed out before, LAT revenues were off appreciably in 2008 compared to what was budgeted. The 2008 budget planned for $7,572,683 in revenue from all sources. Through the end of November, 2008, we had received only $5,753,795 for myriad reasons including the introduction of the Local Services Tax, the decline in construction permits, and the loss of Earned Income Tax funds.
When you consider that, with the 2008 budgeted revenue figure, we were slated to end the fiscal year with a $177,210 deficit - in order to bring us in line with the LAT fund balance ordinance - the revenue loss becomes even, well, scarier.
Why? I'll tell you.
LAT's fund balance policy mandates the Township must carry a fund balance equal to either two months or 15% of general fund expenses. If the fund balance falls below that level, it must be made up over the next five years.
When we missed the mark so severely at the end of 2008 due to the loss of revenue, the policy compelled us to start repaying the piper.
So, when considering the 2009 budget, commissioners had two choices:
- Maintain most staffing levels (one full time staffer moved to part time), maintain most services (the Fourth of July picnic has been canceled after lackluster attendance, etc.), increase property taxes, and identify other revenue sources (registering contractors to use Township bulk waste dumpsters, considering field charges for non-tournament games, etc.)
- Reduce staffing levels across several departments, reduce services, and maintain property taxes
2.) Lack of participation
I understand and respect Ms. Herr would rather we reduce staff and services, regardless of where they came from in the budget. That is her prerogative.
But it is also her right - some would say her responsibility - to engage in the process while the budget is being crafted instead of sending letters after the decision has been made. The one regret I have when deciding to run for a second term as commissioner is that I have so far not been able consistently to bring more people to Township meetings to participate in the process.
LAT scheduled, advertised and held three special meetings devoted to the budget on Monday, Nov. 3, Monday, Nov. 17, and Wednesday, Dec. 3. The budget was laid on the table on Monday, Dec. 8 prior to public meetings on Monday, Dec. 22 and Monday, Dec. 29. Less than a handful of people viewed the proposed budget at the municipal complex. The budget was formally approved at the last meeting.
Not one member of the public attended any of those six meetings for the purpose of discussing the budget. None.
If Ms. Herr wants to be scared about anything, here's a murderer's row of boogeyman to fear: apathy, complacency, disengagement. Yes, we're all busy, but if we're going to care enough to write a letter to the editor, please care enough to come to a meeting and weigh in on the issues.
And when you consider that fewer than 20% of LAT residents will show up at the polls in 2009 to choose two people to represent them and their interests for the next four years, be afraid. Be very afraid.
I am sure that there are some unnecessary services that Lower Allen could pare prior to making the drastic move to cut our police force.
What are those unnecessary services? What should be cut or reduced to save expenses?
The comment section is open. Whether you're Ms. Herr or another LAT resident, I'd like to hear your opinion on what should be changed.
I'm listening.
XML Feeds
Recent Comments