Pattye Benson

Community Matters

St. Davids Golf Club, Burned-out Light Bulbs & TE School District Finances!

I attended last night’ Board of Supervisors meeting and my friend, Ray Clarke attended the T/E School District’s Finance Meeting. Following my update on the supervisors meeting, please read Ray’s comments.

The agenda for last night’s supervisors meeting went quickly and there was no ‘new matters’ from board members. I was prepared for ‘new matters’ from citizens with two topics. Based on the supervisors meeting of October 3, I asked Supervisor Olson (Bob Lamina and EJ Richter were absent) if St. Davids Golf Club had been contacted. Olson deferred to Mimi Gleason who said yes, the club was contacted and said it was a positive conversation. I asked about the timeline for response from the club re the sidewalks and her response was that there was no time limit. In other words, I said the issue remains ‘open ended’ to which she responded yes. Bottom line, it may have taken us 21 months to get to this point in time with St. Davids Golf Club, but apparently nothing is going to move forward anytime soon, in the way of enforcement, etc.. Was the only way to receive an update (status) on the sidewalks at St. Davids was to ask the same question at every Board of Supervisors meeting? I guess that is correct.

Second citizen matter from me last night was the burned out light bulb situation in the township. Although I have focused on Chesterbrook and Duportail on Community Matters, I have noticed other area lights out (Old Eagle School Rd. as an example). My questions produced some interesting facts:

  1. The township (residents) pays PECO per light post, regardless if there are electrical issues or if the lights are working or not.
  2. The township has a yearly maintenance contract with Lenni Electrical to change light bulbs. Some have suggested that perhaps the township was trying to save money and maybe wasn’t calling the company for maintenance as a way to avoid service call expenses. Well, I discovered that the township (residents) pays a flat fee regardless of how many (or how few) times they come out to change the light bulbs!
  3. The pink ribbons are placed by township staff to indicate to Lenni Electrical where light bulbs need replacement. I noticed driving to the township building that there are pink ribbons on street lights that have working light bulbs and questioned why weren’t the ribbons removed when the light bulbs were changed? Obvious, I would think. According to Steve Burgo, township engineer, they know that this is a problem and are working with the contractor to get them to remove the pink ribbons.

Mimi cited ongoing electrical problems on Chesterbrook Boulevard as the cause for the non-working light bulbs. I suggested that the electrical problem with some of the Chesterbrook lights has existed for 27+ years. The response from Mimi Gleason, was that they were working with PECO and that State Rep Warren Kampf had been called for assistance.

After leaving the township building, I decided to do a more scientific study of counting the burned-out light bulbs on Chesterbrook and Duportail Rds. I drove down one side of Chesterbrook Blvd. to Valley Forge Road, turned around and drove back, counting as many of the burned-out light bulbs as I could find. This 2-mile (or less) stretch of roads doesn’t have 19 burned-out light bulbs, there are 37 non-working street lights.

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? We are all taxpayers and our money is paying PECO for these lights and our money is paying Lenni Electrical change the light bulbs. Where’s the accountability on this issue? I remain hopeful that at least one of our supervisors will take up the cause of township light bulbs.

Moving on to last night’s TE School District Finance Committee meeting. While I was busy sorting through the burned-out light bulb situation, Ray Clarke was at the Finance Committee meeting. He offers the following comments with his own editorial remarks. As always, I am appreciative that Ray not only attends the school board meetings, but takes the time to detail his thoughts for Community Matters. Thanks Ray!

The TESD Finance Committee meeting turned up a few points of interest on Monday night.

  1. The district’s 2010/11 financials got a nice boost from the decision to self-insure healthcare benefits coupled with better than projected claims experience. That turned out to be a $1.3 million favorable variance, which in turn generated a $0.9 million surplus for the year. So our Fund Balance, combined with an additional $0.5 million which under previous accounting rules was separate (I think), is (6/30/2011) now up to a munificent $31 million. (Note, I came in slightly late to this discussion, and there was no handout on this, so my numbers may not be precise)
  2. Also on the plus side, the Committee discussed what to do with the restoration of Corbett’s proposed cut to the state reimbursement of 50% of social security taxes, worth $1.3 million this year, which came in after TE’s 2011/12 budget was passed. The administration proposed ~$200K for postponed text-book buys and ~$300K mostly for technology spending. This generated a lot of debate, essentially asking the question: what is going to be the impact of, say, $60,000 for piloting applications for iPads, versus the current technology environment. To my mind this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg: how will we use technology spending to improve the analytic or creative skills of our students? If we need a pilot to answer that question, fine, but should we spend $60,000 for a pilot? It was agreed that this would be subject for future Board discussion.
  3. Important upcoming dates: November 3rd for the Tax Study Group’s presentation of the pros and cons of and EIT, and November 14thfor a special School Board meeting to consider notification of the intent to request a referendum on the April 24th ballot. Some important things (from my perspective) to bear in mind here:The official financial projection model is being modified to remove the assumption of a Act 1 index 1.7% property tax increase for 2012/13, so the base case is not both a property and an income tax. The base case gap for 2012/13 is currently $5.5 million. (It’s not clear that the model has been updated yet for the actual healthcare cost and fund balance outcomes.)
    1. The TSG’s approach is to present the features of an EIT independent of the alternatives; the Board (and potentially voters) will have to decide the merits of those pros and cons relative to its own assessment of the pros and cons of alternatives like cutting educational programs, raising property taxes or – for a few years – using some of that Fund Balance.
    2. Unknown actions of the townships, which would be entitled to claim up to 50% of the revenues from a voter-approved residential EIT, loom large. How highly would the BOS weigh education versus the township’s own needs?
    3. Of course, totally moot unless the School Board votes to ask the question, and the voters approve it, since there is no sign that the townships are mulling and EIT of their own.
    4. Of course, the Republican candidates for the School Board have already decided the EIT question for themselves without waiting for the TSG analysis. Presumably they are part of the minority in TE that a) does not pay the tax already, and b) has an income greater than 40% of the assessed value of their house, so would rather see any gap (after using some of that fund balance) made up from cuts in the education program or property tax increases.

On the TEEA contract: the district is required by the state to begin negotiations for the next contract in January. The way this all gets going is for the union to send a letter to the district at that time.

How creative can the parties be? Is there a way to trade-off much lower healthcare premiums/benefits (that encourage personal accountability) for maybe allowing step increases, keeping the total compensation cost within at the very least the increase modeled in the district’s current projection?

Share or Like:


Add a Comment
  1. 4.Of course, the Republican candidates for the School Board have already decided the EIT question for themselves without waiting for the TSG analysis. Presumably they are part of the minority in TE that a) does not pay the tax already, and b) has an income greater than 40% of the assessed value of their house, so would rather see any gap (after using some of that fund balance) made up from cuts in the education program or property tax increases.

    Wow Ray — tell us what you really think. So you think that being opposed to an EIT would only fall to the minority in this township? Then why make this statement, since you presume that an EIT referendum wouild pass?

    You didn’t mention that two Democratic candidates have been ENDORSED by the teacher’s union. Then again, the teacher’s union have temporarily taken down their website…perhaps a change of strategy?

    This is politics Ray. If you are going to be reporting on a meeting, thanks so much. If you are going to use your report to cache your own bias in favor of an EIT, please separate it from your “reporting.”

    IF you favor an EIT, just vote in the democratic supervisors. They can impose one without a referendum, right?

    1. In my post, I said, ” . . . Ray Clarke was at the Finance Committee meeting. He offers the following comments with his own editorial remarks. . . ” Just as your comments are on Community Matters, Ray’s ‘editorial remarks’ are likewise on Community Matters. He did not attend the Finance Committee at my request nor as a reporter — he simply offered his notes and opinion on what he heard. If you attended the Finance Committee meeting and would like to offer your own comments, I would be more than happy to post them.

      I happen to agree that the yellow ‘No EIT’ signs by the Republican candidates is a preemptive move prior to the electoin. Rather than waiting to hear the findings of the Earned Income Tax study group at the upcoming public meetings, the Republican candidates have chosen to decide ‘the issue’ of the EIT before the EIT is even an ‘issue’. Actually, it is very clever on the part of the Republican candidates – make an issue before there is an issue and then leave it to the other side to defend it.

      As for your claim that 2 Democratic candidates have been endorsed by the teacher’s union — would that information be something that Ray Clarke would have found out at the school district’s Finance Meeting or would know some other way? I am not aware of the endorsement so perhaps you could tell me and other CM readers who these endorsed candidates are and where we can find the information — I’m guessing the endorsement would be on the candidate’s websites. With the upcoming T/E teacher contract negotiations, I think many of us would like to have this information.

    2. Thank you Pattye for addressing the issues in this reply.

      I was very clear in my EIT commentary: “….some important things (from my perspective) to bear in mind here ….”

      No indeed, I don’t think that opposition to an EIT would be confined to a minority, especially if there is no chance for the people to get educated. But I do know that the aggregate incremental tax would be more from an equivalent property tax increase that raises the same money for the SD. Every resident needs to weigh the cost of that equivalent property tax increase or an EIT, based on their own circumstances (income vs assessed value). But it seems that the Rs want to deny the people the chance of their own analysis, without even listening to the results of the deliberations of a group devoted to studying the issue. Maybe there is funding from high income donors?

      I have no idea about TEEA endorsements.

      The Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors can indeed vote to impose an EIT at will. As far as I know, they are not considering doing so. The issue at hand is whether the School Board (which can not impose such a tax), will put the question of a residential EIT to the voters next year (or, preferably from my perspective, in any subsequent year).

      1. forgive me, but if the school board cannot impose an EIT why can they or why would they put the question to the voters. Just a data collection service?

        1. The School Board has to balance the expenses of the educational program with revenues. If there is a deficit, the Board may conclude that program cuts or fund balance use are insufficient to close that deficit. The Board can – by its own vote – raise revenues through increases in the property tax rate, up to limits imposed by the state. For property tax increases beyond that limit, voter approval is required. The Board may think that it might be better to implement an EIT rather than increase property taxes; in that case, voter approval is also required. In order to have the flexibility to have the question on the primary ballot, the Board has to notify the Townships this November of the possibility they may do so.

  2. Pattye >> “Am I the only one who has a problem with this? We are all taxpayers and our money is paying PECO for these lights and our money is paying Lenni Electrical change the light bulbs. Where’s the accountability on this issue?”

    You are not the only person that has a problem with the Township’s mishandling, and this accountability and management failure.. Unfortunately i think what you have keyed on here is an endemic problem of mismanagement and lack of accountability in Tredyffrin, and is certainly not isolated to street lights. We have seen the process failures at Tredyffrin repeatedly for years, some minor, some far more significant.

    Looks as though the 2011 budget shows $290,000 for electricity to traffic signals and street lights, + repair and maintenance of street lights at budgeted at $58,000. Seems alarming that no one has their eye on a ball so costly….

  3. I accept all that you say here — but I believe that Ray’s conclusion that “Presumably they are part of the minority in TE that a) does not pay the tax already, and b) has an income greater than 40% of the assessed value of their house, so would rather see any gap (after using some of that fund balance) made up from cuts in the education program or property tax increases.” is a factually incorrect comment, not editorial at all.
    He concludes that anyone opposed to an EIT would be part of a minority that doesnt pay it OR has an income in excess of 40% of their home’s assessed value. If that is truly a minority, then one would assume (he says “perhaps the voters”) that it would pass. It’s not up to the school board to pass it — it’s up to the voters. Regardless of the TSC, that is an option.

    And I challenged a Republican candidate as to why they would have those signs about vote no to EIT by electing Republicans, and was reminded that is about Supervisors, not school board — because of the previous position on behalf of an EIT taken by former Democratic candidates for Supervisor — in favor of such a tax. And Supervisors do not need a referendum. So the underlying premise to those signs is that the SUPERVISOR candidates on the Republican side oppose an EIT. A distinction WITH a difference. Do the Supervisors even discuss it in their campaign? But the power is there 100%.

    So when people make editorial comments that are meant to obfuscate the issue, I believe it is demeaning to the voters because it makes and draws conclusions that presume the voters don’t understand the issues….and hopes they continue to stay in the dark.

    In other words — contrasting Ray’s conclusion — one can be opposed to an EIT for a myriad of reasons, including believing that the property tax is the fairest way to charge people for the decisions they make in purchasing a home in a good school district, regardless of their income. It means when you move here, you know what your taxes will be calculated from. You can apply to reassess your home if you believe its value has decreased, but you pay for schools in direct relationship to the property and home you chose to purchase. You do not need to expose your income stream, which may or may not be independent of the price of your home, to capture by a school district and the teacher’s union. You choose where to work, and you choose where to live. If you chose to live here because it did not pay an EIT, any further taxation in that direction is beyond what you bargained for.

    As to the endorsement — the TEEA has taken down the website — even the cached portion is gone — and no candidate with a brain would want to be associated with that endorsement…which is why I did not mention names.

    The Main Line Life editorial policy doesn’t limit what people write in Letters to the Editor either — so I don’t fault you or even Ray for his comments. But I do think when you cache your comments in reporting, and reach conclusions that bear scrutiny, it’s disingenuous.

    1. Interesting that you say a Republican candidate suggested signs were about ‘Republican supervisors’ saying ‘no’ to EIT — nothing on the sign says supervisors or a township EIT, just says ‘Republicans’. How is the public supposed to know that Republican supervisor candidates are saying ‘no’ to an EIT and not Republican school board candidates saying ‘no’. A ‘distinction WITH a difference’ — sorry, I don’t see a distinction on those yellow signs.

      the previous position on behalf of an EIT taken by former Democratic candidates for Supervisor

      Which former Democratic candidates took a position on behalf of an EIT?? I was a former supervisor candidate and I DID NOT take a position on the EIT; not a position ‘in favor’ or ‘against’ — I simply wanted a full, honest & open discussion of an EIT, pros & cons, who was currently paying it, who would be exempt from paying it, etc. – I believed 2 years ago, and I still believe today, that all options should be investigated and thoroughly discussed. . . . much like what I thought the school district’s Earned Income Tax study committee is trying to accomplish.

    2. ??? Not understanding ‘Give it a rest’… went to TEEA site and the site is there… Interesting!

    3. “It’s not up to the school board to pass it — it’s up to the voters.”
      But the point is, it won’t be up to the voters if the School Board does not put it to the vote!

      As to that explanation of the signs: typical Republican doublespeak! You’ve got to be kidding! Just like the Kampf “No” vote to the sewer fund tax increase when he knew it was going to pass. And all other “Just Say No” positions. I surely hope that next week’s debate makes the School Board candidates state their position on whether they will undertake a fair and objective assessment of the TSG analysis.

      So let’s take that excuse for what it is. Why would candidates seeking to represent the interest of the voters start out by ignoring the work of such a broad spectrum set of those voters? Seemingly irrational, unless the candidates are really beholden to other interests.

      If you chose to live here because there was no EIT, then certainly such a tax would be negative. But what if you chose to live here because the district delivered educational value and you thought that an EIT would be a smart way to do that by reclaiming taxes paid to other municipalities? Then continued property tax increases would be negative. The point is, you can always construct individual circumstances that favor one solution over another. What’s best for the aggregate?

      We don’t actually know the joint distribution of income and assessments which would govern the economic impact of property and income taxes on individuals. Each voter knows their own position, though. We do know that ~4,900 residents of TE already pay an EIT, though – and would have no tax increase whatsoever if TE implemented one.

      There’s an interesting comment from MA, below. Certainly expense reductions are another option to a tax increase of any type. However, the options are dwindling, after many rounds of cuts over the last few years. The $5.5 million deficit projected for 2012/13 (and rising thereafter) already assumes no teachers’ compensation increase – no step movement, no matrix increase. There is a healthcare cost increase, and I’m wondering if there could be a tradeoff between the benefits and wages that benefits everyone.

      And we should not forget the other option: use that fund balance! I think there are many advantages to keeping taxes just where they are for 2012/13.

      I don’t really care whether we are governed by Rs or D or Is. I’d just like to feel that whoever is in charge is qualified, cares to represent all residents, and does not resort to political tricks to win power at all costs.

    4. Those “No EIT” signs do not specify supervisors. And, as reported on the Main Line Times “About the possibility of an earned income tax Broadhurst adds, ‘All the Republican candidates are committed to opposing the earned income tax. …” There is no mention of just supervisors. As an independent voter, I am terribly disappointed that a party I respected would take such a strong position before the TSG has reported their findings.

      1. Thank you for this update re the Earned Income Tax. I had not seen this quote from Mike Broadhurst, chair of the Tredyffrin Republicans but it is an article on today’s Main Line Media News. From the article, it is very clear that the Republican candidates oppose the Earned Income Tax — he does not differentiate between supervisor or school board candidates.

        I too am disappointed that out of deference to the members of the school district’s tax study group, (the volunteers hours of time and commitment), could the ‘no EIT’ have waited until after the public meeting on their findings.

        Here’s the link if you want to read the entire article:

  4. Pattye,

    Maybe you could inquire about the 7 other land development agreements that include sidewaks besides St. Davids. Are their’s built yet?

  5. Thank you for talking about the street lights. I moved to Chesterbrook 5 years ago, and I have repeatedly asked the township staff about the lights on Chesterbrook Blvd. I walk to Wilson Park after work and walking home as it starts to get dark can be scary. Doesnt one of the township supervisors live in Chesterbrook? You would think that supervisor would help us.

  6. Ray Clarke says:

    But I do know that the aggregate incremental tax would be more from an equivalent property tax increase that raises the same money for the SD. Every resident needs to weigh the cost of that equivalent property tax increase or an EIT, based on their own circumstances (income vs assessed value).

    That is a fair surmise. But the innuendo is that there are only two choices to Tredyffrin: pass an EIT, or increase property taxes. If those were the only choices, then I fully agree with Ray’s observation that the two options should be weighed.

    But I have to wonder why there is an unstated assumption that you have to have one or the other?

    Couldnt we reduce programs or staff or enact furloughs or negotiate a teachers contract with no pay raises? In the private sector, I dont know anyone whose compensation hasnt gone down the past couple of years. Thats the reality. If my income is down, why do I get to choose between an EIT or a property tax increase to fund raises for the folks in the public sector?

    I do appreciate the work of the EIT study group. It will be well to have an informed discussion of the alternatives, but lets not forget the third leg of the stool.

  7. Pattye, in this blog you have bemoaned the empty store fronts and offices along the 202 corridor. While I believe this is reflective of the overall weakness in the economy, you have actively sought as solution at the township level and pined for the supervisors to appoint members to the Economic Advisory Board so they could start meeting and discuss the problem.

    I can assure you that implementing an EIT is the best way to ensure that when the economy does improve, Tredyffrin Township will be left behind. Our neighbors, Upper Merion and East Whiteland, do not have an EIT and would love to steal the tenants that are currently located in the township.

    It will also stall any development in the township, resulting in no sidewalks being built.

    1. Anonymous – do your homework, East Whiteland ABSOLUTELY HAS AN EIT…

      This sounds like the same old Mike from Berwyn talking points, only less articulate. As a business owner myself (EWT), and also someone very close to several commercial realtors I can tell you that in all of our experience that whether or not a municipality has an EIT is rarely an important consideration when selecting office or retail space.. That is fact. Sure there are exceptions such as Mike from Berwyn choosing Radnor for his business, but honestly these analysis are rare, and with the likely movement of the remaining 5% of municipalities implementing EIT over the next few years, these considerations may be totally irrelevant…

    2. And by the way, check the 202 corridor now. Not too many empty store fronts any more, in fact it looks better than the high end retail at the mall in King of Prussia, or any ace else. Commercial is not much worse relative to other areas. This is not because of lack of EIT, or even because of the proclaimed “Tredyffrin gold standard”…. Credit where credit is due, the demographics are tremendous relative to most other localities. That is not likely to change without some other outside influence or event… In fact the occupied retail avail perpetuates the success of the housing. Just don’t mess with the quality of the schools!

      1. Business is indeed picking up in Tredyffrin Township!

        Last year we saw H.H.Gregg move into the empty store front that had been Circuit City. Then, last month, the abandoned Oskar Hubar site was occupied by Mealeys Furniture. Now, a Big Lots is setting up shop where the old Linens & Things had been located. I also see that the Charlie Browns restaurant location is being renovated in preparation for a new occupant.

        I also a mini business boom down by the Whole Foods area, with new construction and new shops.

        All of these new business came to Tredyffrin without the need for the government to spend millions in tax dollars. Instead, it was private enterprise that led to this economic resurgence. Note to Paoli Train Station Mega Project Supporters: There is a lesson to be learned here.

    3. I want to mention that Upper Merion does not have an EIT but they do levy a ‘Business Privilege & Mercantile Tax’ on businesses in their township. The mercantile tax is no longer an option for municipalities in PA. If your municipality has a mercantile tax, they are grandfathered but no new mercantile taxes can be levied in PA (so not an option for Tredyffrin). Off hand, I don’t know if the mercantile tax rate is lower or higher than an EIT would be for businesses. But with a mercantile tax, Upper Merion would not levy an EIT.

      1. Just to be clear, that is an apples to oranges comparison. An EIT does not directly effect a business bottom line, but a mercantile tax surely does.

  8. Didn’t I hear a Supervisor say he requested to credit the township’s PECO bill for all the lights that don’t work because of no electric and the Township Manager said that causes more problems than it’s worth. Maybe if it was her money she would think differently. The problem is with township management over all these years.

    1. Yes, JD said that he had suggested that PECO should credit the township for non-working street lights – like you would expect with your own PECO bill at home. Mimi Gleason responded that that JD’s suggestion would cause other problems. Wonder how much credit PECO would owe the township for 27+ years of non-working street lights on Chesterbrook?

      1. Why would PECO credit or reimburse Tredyffrin because the township screwed up?? That is like not paying your car loan payment because your car is broken and you didn’t fix it…. Good luck.

    2. Pattye, I think we need to talk about something else that came up at Monday’s meeting: the college rental situation in Mt. Pleasant, Mr. Olson’s district. Other than moderating the discussion Olson made no contribution. It was left to J.D. DiBuonaventuro to address the specifics of the situation—it’s not J.D.’s district, but he recalled in detail the BOS discussion leading to the adoption of the present ordinance as well as the details of the ordinance itself. The Mt. Pleasant resident who was at the microphone asking the supervisors to address the situation acknowledged those in the township who have been active in working to resolve the issues that her community has to face on a daily basis because of college rentals: “Thank you, J.D., Chief Chambers, Mr. Scott, you stepped up and did what you were supposed to do.” No mention of Mr. Olson. Olson has represented Mt. Pleasant for over 30 years and he had nothing to say.

  9. With all the discussion on the EIT, I think a point is being missed that is incredibly important:

    Enacting an EIT is actually enacting a second tax on top of what we already pay in property taxes. There is NO requirement for property tax reduction in the EIT law.

    Therefore, what this really becomes is another unchecked revenue stream at a time when most people can afford less and less.

    For those of you disappointed with Mr. Broadhurst’s comments, you did leave out the fact that he brought this point in as part of that opposition.

    Perhaps if an EIT were a replacement rather than an addition, many of those who oppose would reconsider. Until then, I blame no one for not wanting two taxes.

    1. This is a good example of why we need the Tax Study Group that the Rs want to pre-empt.

      “….what this really becomes is another unchecked revenue stream….”

      First, of course, there is a check on the existing revenue stream, known as the Act 1 index and the associated Exception process.

      Second, PA law limits any school district tax on earned incomes to 1%. (Home rule municipalities may tax at a higher rate).

      So, the only way revenues from a 1% school district EIT would go up would be if incomes went up, which of course relates directly to ability to pay, unlike the current property tax.

      For now, the Fund Balance needs to be used. After one or two years down the road of further belt tightening the voters will have to decide between large program cuts, property tax increases or an EIT.

      1. “This is a good example of why we need the Tax Study Group that the Rs want to pre-empt.”

        That is why we have elections, so the peoples voice can be heard. We aren’t lemmings bound by an appointed committee. At least the Republicans clearly state their position.

  10. What a threadbare case M. Broadhurst and others make for voting Republican – that two years ago one Democratic candidate for supervisor spoke in favor of a full airing of the facts about EIT. Even a fair airing of the facts is seen as “acting like a Democrat”. It’s reflective of the laughable state of politics in Tredyffrin.

    Particularly ironic too since “that candidate” is a life-long independent whose focus was and remains issues- based, and not party politics. To her the community is all that matters….You know, the whole community…..

    And to be clear: NO Democratic candidate for Supervisor or School Board has spoken out or taken a position in favor of an EIT. Not a single one. That is because not a single Democratic candidate is in favor of imposing higher taxes on any resident in these difficult times.

    The TTGOP’s vomit yellow signs are a cynical ploy to scare the uninformed that an EIT is a November ballot issue – which it isn’t – and to imply that they oppose the tax while the Democrats favor it.


    A much stronger case can be made for ending the partisan antics of an all-Republican board that has spent the last two years working on Bob Lamina’s “bucket list”. – namely, to get his buddy Warren Kampf elected, to take the Planning Commission’s authority for land development away and to oppose any sidewalk amendment from being passed and triggering St. Davids’ obligation to build a sidewalk. Crony politics flourishes when there’s no one to make a stink.

    The level of incompetence and disregard for proper procedure, not to mention the sheer arrogance of some on that one-party Board are enough reasons to elect a more representative group of people to serve the community.

    1. The Democrats will neither oppose or support an EIT before an election. They won’t support it, because they won’t get elected. They won’t oppose it, because if they get elected they will vote for an EIT. Better oppose the Rs on everything than actually declare the true goal of more and more taxes to bind the public to the government teet.

      I am sure in the next election cycle the Dems will add gold signs to their inventory of red and blue signs in their never ending goal of confussing the public and pretending to be fiscally conservative.

    2. Kate, “The TTGOP’s vomit yellow signs…”??? Really?? I think the signs are Sunshine Yellow…

      The anger and partisan in your posts totally distracts from the valid points you do make….

  11. Pattye, mercantile tax rates are calculated by mills(.0001) while EIT is calculated by the hundreths(.01). Mercantile Tax is calculated by the businesses gross receipts meaning before any deductions. EIT is calculated of a individuals gross income. There are very few deductions affecting the EIT.
    As far as residents are concerned towards the EIT being a second tax levied against them. 80+% of the municipalities in the state of PA already levy the tax. Meaning if you work in one of these municipalities that already collect those taxes from you then you will not be charged anything extra depending on the tax rate.
    With the residents concerned about another unchecked stream of revenue for the townships and school district. The EIT has regulations under Act 32. I am for the EIT because I already pay it to another township. I would like my money to service my home taxing district and school district rather than someone else’s

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme