TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MAKEFIELD

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTES – MAY 2, 2007

 

 

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Lower Makefield was held in the Municipal Building on May 2, 2007.  Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.  Mr. Santarsiero called the roll.

 

Those present:

 

Board of Supervisors:             Ron Smith, Chairman

                                                Greg Caiola, Vice Chairman

                                                Steve Santarsiero, Secretary

                                                Grace Godshalk, Supervisor

                                                Pete Stainthorpe, Supervisor

 

Others:                                    Terry Fedorchak, Township Manager

                                                David Truelove, Township Solicitor

                                                James Majewski, Township Engineer

                                                Kenneth Coluzzi, Chief of Police

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Ms. Cynthia Osofsky stated she is present about the Marrazzo situation.  She stated Marrazzo’s had an advertisement in a magazine about their Showroom Open House to be held on May 5.  She stated she did not feel any consumers were to be in that portion of the property until they were inspected and received their Permit.  She stated at the last meeting the Marrazzo’s were present and stated the neighbors should have discussed some of these issues with them.  She stated she did speak to them after that meeting, and asked if they could move the stone toward the back, move some of the tractors out of the front area, and restore the arborvitae.  She stated since then they have added more stone higher than the fence, added more tractors, and done no planting.  She stated the weekend after the meeting, the doors to the new portion were open all weekend long.  She stated the neighbors wrote to Ms. Frick, and Ms. Frick did visit the site, and had them close the doors advising that they were only to be opened in the event of an emergency.

Ms. Osofsky stated she is concerned that commercial properties are permitted to operate in this way when the residents are required to apply for Permits.

 

Mr. Truelove stated a letter has been sent to the Marrazzo’s about the time within which they must submit Permits.  The Zoning issues referred to will be addressed when the

As-Built Plans are received in a timely manner.  Mr. Truelove stated the Township is

not ignoring the situation. 

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 2 of 33

 

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated she feels the doors should be locked, and there should not be an Open House.  Mr. Truelove stated the doors must be left open for emergency access.

 

Ms. Bev Yarnell stated she lives across the street from Marrazzo’s.  She stated when the sun rises in the morning,  glare off the glass in the new building is almost unbearable; and she feels it would be a hazard to people driving on the road.  Chief Coluzzi was asked to look into this.

 

Mr. Smith stated when the eventual Zoning Hearing Board meeting is held, the residents will be notified.

 

Mr. Scott Burgess, 15 Glen Drive, stated he has not heard when the back-flow preventers will be received. Mr. Majewski stated he will call them tomorrow and find out where they stand.  Mr. Burgess stated he had asked who had responsibility for opening and closing the Canal gates at Woodside Road during a flood; and Mr. Fedorchak stated the DCNR is responsible for this, and two of their employees have been identified locally.

Mrs. Godshalk stated she feels some residents in Yardley Borough have responsibility for the flood gates as well.  Mr. Fedorchak stated they are in the process of changing that procedure.  Chief Coluzzi stated he met with DCNR this week, and they advised that the Friends of the Canal have keys to operate the gates and they did operate some of the gates during the last rain event.  He added that he was advised by DCNR that this procedure will no longer exist, and DCNR will control all the gates.  He stated the protocol is to drain the Canal 1’ at a 1” to 2” rainfall, and anything more than a 2” rainfall, to drain the Canal. 

 

Mr. Burgess asked for an update on the culvert and other work.  Mr. Majewski stated with regard to the large culvert at the Canal, DCNR is currently working with their consultant to take back jurisdiction from PennDOT so they can finalize the design.  With regard to the smaller pipe that partially collapsed in the last storm, the Public Works Department has been looking into replacing it with a similar size pipe.  Ultimately when DCNR does the Canal culvert, they hope they will look into expanding that one also. 

 

Mr. Smith thanked Mr. Burgess for accepting the position of Liaison to the Task Force.  Mr. Burgess asked if there will be a single point of contact he will have with the Board, and Mr. Santarsiero suggested he be in contact with the Township Manager and Township engineer.

 

Ms. Anita Grossman, 1368 Heller Drive, noted a problem they are having at Makefield Chase with the noise level coming from Elm Lowne.  She stated they understood that the property was purchased as a preservation.  She stated there are now parties there every weekend.  She provided a schematic showing the proximity of the homes to Elm Lowne.  She has contacted Larry Ott, who is in charge of many of the events, and she has also

 

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 3 of 33

 

 

called the Police.  She stated when the Officers arrive, it is silent; and when the Officers leave, it is noisy again.  She stated she can feel the vibration of the music in her home.

 

Mr. Smith stated some of the members of the Elm Lowne Committee are present this evening.  He stated Elm Lowne is a historic property in the Township, and it does cost the Township a certain amount of money each year to pay off the bills for the purchase and provide for upkeep and maintenance.  He stated the Elm Lowne group has tried to make the property such that they are not losing money and to defray the costs.  He stated these functions appear to have effected the qualify of life of the surrounding neighbors. 

 

Mr. Caiola asked how late these functions go, and Ms. Grossman stated they go to 10:00 p.m.  She stated they are unable to read, watch television, or have guests to their home even with the windows shut.  She stated almost every Saturday night they are now booking parties. 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated he would like to have the Elm Lowne Committee speak to Mr. Ott as they may be able to minimize the problem if they make adjustment to where the DJ or bands sets up.  Ms. Grossman stated she does not feel this would correct the problem.  She stated the tent has sections and each section can be rolled up.  She stated if it is hot out, she does not feel they would be willing to keep the flaps down.

 

Ms. Jo Norum, Elm Lowne Committee, was present and stated the rule she is aware of is that all music is to be set up facing the street.   She stated she has been present at events and has told them to lower the volume.  She stated possibly this is not getting through to the Wedding Planners or the caterers.

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels Mr. Ott should come to a meeting to make sure that he is doing all he can to minimize the noise.

 

Ms. Grossman stated it appears that the Township is making a little money, and Mr. Ott is making a lot of money at the residents’ expense. 

 

Mr. Smith stated the Board of Supervisors must also decide if the money they are making is worth the aggravation.

 

Mr. Santarsiero asked if there have been nights when it is better.  Ms. Grossman stated the first event of the season was completely enclosed because it was very cold.  She stated she still had to call Mr. Ott to turn down the volume because she could still hear the bass.  She stated the next event it was warmer, and from 6:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. the only time it was quiet was when the Police Officer came to her home. 

 

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 4 of 33

 

 

Mr. Smith stated if they cannot work something out between Mr. Ott, the Elm Lowne Committee, and some of the residents, they will bring this matter back to the Board of Supervisors as an Agenda item. 

 

Ms. Grossman thanked the Board for serving the community and doing the right thing. 

 

Ms. Barbara Petrush, 47 Sutphin Pines, asked if they found any of the documents from 1985 that were referred to at the last meeting as to what Marrazzo’s could and could not do.  Mr. Truelove stated the Zoning Inspection Department did a thorough re-assessment of all records; and the only thing, in addition to what they had indicated previously that they had, was a 1975 attempt to have signage changed.  There was nothing from 1985.  He stated Mr. Koopman issued his letter about Marrazzo’s in October, 2004; and he made no reference to anything from 1985.  He stated the only thing they are aware of that is missing are the notes of Testimony, or Transcript, from the 1972 Zoning Hearing Board Decision.  Ms. Petrush stated she moved into Sutphin Pines in 1984, and the Marrazzo’s purchased it in 1985; and they ran into a few problems with what Marrazzo’s was doing, and they indicated they would be willing to work with them.  She stated Ms. Frick did go into the archives and found a lot of data; and they were only to be allowed to add three additional buildings, and she stated they have more than that.  She stated the greenhouse which is now a showroom and no longer a greenhouse, was not supposed to be higher than the original building.  She stated they were also to have a specific number of parking spaces which she believes was 45 and not 92. 

 

Mr. Smith stated once they go before the Zoning Hearing Board, they will be notified. 

Ms. Petrush asked if everyone from Sutphin Pines will be notified, as they were not notified when the Application for the cell tower was going up.  Mr. Smith stated they will make a special attempt to notify those who have come to recent meetings if they provide their name, address, and telephone number. 

 

Ms. Petrush asked if they have found any information giving the Marrazzo’s stipulations at the time they closed on the property as to what they could or could not do on the property; and Mr. Truelove stated they have found nothing in the Township file. 

Ms. Petrush asked if there are any Deed Restrictions in Doylestown; and Mr. Truelove stated they could look into this, but he does not feel there are any.  He stated the information he has is based on the non-conforming use aspect of the property which was initially reported in the 1957 Decision and followed by the 1972 Decision; and he did outline them in a memo. 

 

Mr. Smith stated he has been getting e-mail transmissions on almost a daily basis from Ms. Frick who has been working exhaustively on this and trying to be responsive. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated she knows the Marrazzo’s came in during the late 1980’s to put on the present greenhouse.  She stated they were only allowed to expand it by a certain

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 5 of 33

 

 

percentage of the property they had.  She stated this information has apparently disappeared.  She stated if there was a Permit, it would have gone to Doylestown, and she feels they should do a search in Doylestown.  Mr. Truelove stated they could do a search of the Deed and anything that is pertinent to that such as the Recorder of Deeds and the Board of Tax Assessments. 

 

Mr. Smith stated all of this information will be provided to the Zoning Hearing Board.

 

Ms. Petrush asked if the gasoline tank on the property is allowed, and Mr. Fedorchak stated they will get back to her on this tomorrow.

 

Ms. Sue Herman thanked the Board of Supervisors and the Citizens Traffic Commission who attended the Bucks County Regional Traffic Study  Open House last week.  She asked for an update on the Lindenhurst Road traffic calming project.  Mr. Majewski stated the project will be advertised for bid tomorrow and Sunday.  They anticipate a bid opening on May 16 so they could possibly award the bid at the Board meeting that evening.  They are still waiting for the PennDOT Permit, and Representative Steil is going to look into this, and they anticipate a call from him tomorrow. 

 

Mr. Smith asked how long PennDOT has had this submission, and Mr. Majewski stated they have had it for five to six weeks.  There were a number of other submissions going back one and a half years.  Mr. Majewski stated PennDOT has been reviewing these and offering comments for revisions.  He feels any future revisions would not be major in scope.  They do have a Grant for which they need to expend funds, and they therefore need to go out to bid even though they do not yet have approval from PennDOT. 

 

Ms. Herman stated the residents are out of patience, and she asked the Board of Supervisors to take formal action to get PennDOT to take action.

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he is concerned that someone may be trying to slow this up.  He asked that a letter be sent, and the engineer and Manager follow up with phone calls to see that this gets done.  He suggested the letter be sent to the Region 6 Coordinator and whoever is in charge of Region 6.  Mr. Smith stated he feels they should also contact their Representatives on any level.  Mr. Caiola stated if Mr. Steil is working on this, he should be contacted as well.  Mr. Fedorchak stated in addition to letters, he feels it is useful to have face-to-face meetings with those responsible to make the decisions, and he would like to do this if this is acceptable to the Board.  Mr. Santarsiero stated the letter sent out should request this as well.  Mrs. Godshalk asked that they get a timeline. 

 

Ms. Herman stated the Grant was approved two and a half years ago.  She stated the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission published a spread sheet at the last Task Force meeting, and the prevailing speed on Lindenhurst Road is 48 miles per hour, and it

 

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 6 of 33

 

 

is extremely dangerous.  Mr. Smith asked that Ms. Herman’s group be copied on the letter as well.

 

Ms. Herman stated the Citizens Traffic Commission will meet in the Township Building on May 21 at 7:30 p.m. to hear residents’ concerns about traffic in Zones 1 and 2 which is the area north of Yardley-Langhorne Road.  Mr. Santarsiero stated if residents were unable to attend the previous meetings regarding the other Zones, they are welcome to attend this meeting as well.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Mr. Santarsiero moved, Mr. Caiola seconded, and it was unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of April 18, 2007 as written.

 

 

STATUS REPORT ON I-95/SCUDDER FALLS BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

 

Mr. George Alexandridis, Chief Engineer of the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, Mr. Bijan Pashanamei, Project Manager from DMJM Harris, and Mr. Joe Grilli, NNTB Corporation were present along with other representatives for this project.

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they were previously present to discuss this project which has been in development for over four years.  He stated the project runs from PA 332 in Newtown and continues along I-95, past the rest area, continuing to Taylorsville Road, over the Bridge to New Jersey and finishing at Bear Tavern Road.  The purpose of the project is to alleviate traffic congestion, improve operational characteristics, and improve safety.  He stated since this is a bi-State project, they must meet design standards in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they first took traffic counts in 2003, developed traffic projections to 2030, and determined that there will be 28 ˝% increase in volume for which they need to design.  He stated the current level of service is F which is failing.  He stated over the past two years they have developed criteria for the project, completed the traffic projections, completed the existing bridge evaluation, developed alternatives and design options, and conducted traffic analyses to ensure that the options that were developed worked from a traffic point of view and were achieving the level of service set for the project.  He stated for each of the options they performed the first and second level screening projection to look at the impacts of each of the options including environmental and noise issues.  He stated they then identified some of the preferred options.  

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they need to determine the number of lanes needed to accommodate the traffic in 2030.  He stated the summary shows that from 332 to

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 7 of 33

 

 

Taylorsville Road they will be adding one lane in each direction so there will be three lanes in each direction.  As you get to Taylorsville Road on the northbound side, they will add two lanes to accommodate the traffic on the Bridge, and four lanes will continue to Bear Tavern Road where one lane will drop and three lanes will continue to Scotch Road and beyond.  On the southbound side, they will have four lanes coming into the Bridge, one lane drops at Taylorsville Road, and three lanes continue to 332. 

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they next looked at the Bridge which is approximately fifty years old.  He stated they needed to determine if they could keep the bridge for the next fifty years or needed to do something else.  He noted a photo of the underside of the bridge which is an older design which is no longer used, although it has been retrofitted.   

He stated they considered three options 1) fixing the Bridge, installing a new deck, and widening it, 2) replacing all the beams on top and widening the Bridge, or 3) constructing a new Bridge.  He stated when comparing costs, the differences were minor; and the decision was made that it was more feasible to have a new Bridge.  He stated the new Bridge will have longer spans, less piers in the River, and will be state-of-the art. 

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated the Project has been divided into four segments – the main line from 332 to Bear Tavern Road, the Taylorsville Road Interchange, the Scudders Falls Bridge, and the New Jersey 29 Interchange.  He stated they looked at different design options for each of these segments and identified preferred options.  He stated for the main line they considered widening the roadway on the inside where the grass is currently located and adding the extra lanes needed and the shoulders.  A rendering of this option was shown.  He stated this option has very little disturbance on the outside.

If they were to widen on the outside, it would take away a lot of the vegetation.  They concluded that the inside widening was the best alternative. 

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated with regard to the Taylorsville Road Interchange, they considered four different options.  He stated Option 1, which is similar to what is existing, calls for the ramps to be in basically the same area.  This Option was further modified to place a signal at the bottom of the ramp, to eliminate weaving by those coming southbound exiting at Taylorsville trying to get onto Woodside.  They are still considering this Option.  He stated another Option was to eliminate the first ramp coming off southbound and combining it with a loop ramp and two signals working together.  The final Option was eliminating the on-ramp at Taylorsville Road for northbound and combining it with a loop ramp.  He stated they conducted screening of all the Options, and Option 1 Modified with the signal at the bottom of the ramp and Option 2 are the ones still being considered; and they should have a decision on this within a month.

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they considered different arrangements for the Bridge.  He stated they considered contra flow where one of the lanes could be switched based on traffic, a double deck bridge to reduce the footprint, a standard lanes Bridge with a five and four

 

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 8 of 33

 

 

option, and a collector distributor road option where as you get off, you get separated from the main line and the on and off traffic does not impact the main line traffic. 

The standard lane option was shown with five lanes going into New Jersey and four lanes into Pennsylvania.  For the collector distributor road the south side would be the same as the standard lane, and on the north side the three lanes for the main line traffic are separated from the interchange activity as you come on and off Taylorsville Road and

NJ 29.  He stated this bridge has a much wider footprint than the standard lane.  A rendering of the collector distributor road was shown.  The standard lane option was shown which is 30 feet narrower.  They did an analysis on the various options, and the preferred option which was recommended to the Commission is to go with the standard lane option with five lanes into New Jersey and four lanes into Pennsylvania.

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they also looked at the alignment or which way the widening should go – either upstream, downstream, or along the center line; and they concluded the upstream alignment was the best way to proceed.

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they looked at four different options for NJ 29 which he reviewed. 

They are still considering two options – the signalized folded diamond option and the round-about.  They hope to have a determination on this within the next month.

 

Because of interest expressed by residents and recreational groups, they looked into a bicycle/pedestrian facility to connect the two sides of the Bridge and the Canals.   He stated they must consider whether bicycles and pedestrians would be permitted to operate on the facility, be separated safely from the traffic, and the cost of the facility would have to be reasonable compared to the cost of the overall project.  He stated they have concluded such a facility would add $12 to $14 million because of the length of the connection to the Canals particularly in New Jersey.  A determination on whether they would construct such a facility will be made during the next phase of the project.

 

Mr. Joe Grilli was present to discuss the noise analysis.  He stated they conducted an extensive study of the project corridor using PennDOT criteria in Pennsylvania and New Jersey criteria in New Jersey.  He stated they did noise measurements throughout the corridor and used a noise prediction model to predict what the future noise levels would be with the project.  The conclusion of the analysis suggested that there are four areas in Pennsylvania where noise mitigation is determined to be warranted, feasible, and reasonable.  Mr. Grilli stated warranted means that the noise levels approach or exceed 67 dba or the increase in noise levels over existing equals or exceeds 10 dba.  He stated feasibility has to do with the level of noise reduction that can be achieved such that a noise barrier would provide at least 5 dba of noise reduction for a majority of the impacted noise sensitive receptors.  The other part to be considered is whether a noise barrier in any way poses a safety, engineering, or access issue.  He stated the final criteria relates to cost effectiveness in term of the cost per benefited residence, and there are specific numbers that PennDOT uses for this.  It must be at least 3dba insertion loss for

May 2, 2007                                                                  Board of Supervisors – page 9 of 33

 

 

Impacted receptors and it must be a 5 dba for non-impacted receptors.  He stated they must also consider engineering and maintenance issues with regard to the noise barriers and the desires of the effected residents. 

 

Mr. Grilli showed a slide showing the four areas which have been determined to meet the criteria of warranted, feasible, and reasonable; and are shown in red on the slide. 

He stated this includes the Jockey Way area –southbound - and opposite that on the northbound roadway – the Clydesdale Road area.  He stated the dimensions of the noise barriers are approximate at this point.  He also noted the area southbound as you approach the rest area and the area leaving the rest area where noise barriers are warranted, feasible, and reasonable; as well as on the opposite side of the roadway in the northbound direction

 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they will make a similar presentation in Ewing next week.  Once they have finalized the identification of their preferred options for the entire project, they will prepare an environmental assessment document and another document called a 4F which basically assesses impacts to recreational areas.  The environmental assessment will be reviewed by Federal Highway and PennDOT and will then be distributed for public review.  There will be a thirty to forty-five days public comment period.  They will have a Public Hearing Open House in the fall of 2007 during this pubic comment period. 

The Federal Highway Administration will issue a Decision on the project whether or not there is a significant impact as a result of the project on the area.  They hope to finish the project by the end of the year so they can move into the next phase which is to start a final design in late 2007 and hopefully start construction in 2009.

 

Mr. Dave Yantz, Upton Lane, asked where the noise barriers will stop noting that they have a lot of noise already and also get cut-through traffic with people traveling 45 miles per hour while children are waiting for school buses.  He stated the noise barriers should be brought down to Taylorsville Road.  Mr. Grilli stated the analysis is based on the established criteria of PennDOT consistent with the Federal Highway Administration policies and procedures related to noise and mitigation.  He stated the analysis resulted in the results he previously explained.  Mr. Yantz stated he does not feel it will be an acceptable noise level to the people who live in this area. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated the noise is unacceptable now; and after they add another lane and there are more cars, it will be worse.  He asked if the analysis done under PennDOT regulations was done at present levels or projected levels, and Mr. Grilli stated they factored in projected traffic looking at the year 2030.  They did modeling to see what the noise level would be in the year 2030 with the project built.  Mr. Santarsiero asked the cost associated with the current design shown for sound barriers, and Mr. Alexandridis stated the cost estimate is $3.5 million to $4 million for the sound barriers shown this evening.  Mr. Santarsiero asked the cost if it were extended to Taylorsville, and

Mr. Alexandridis stated while they do not have this, they could get it.

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 10 of 33

 

 

Ms. Colleen Klock, 1296 Jacob Drive stated she is in the Afton/Quarry Hill area, and there is a cross-over Bridge  She stated it seems they are taking away from the community and asked if they have considered giving them something such as a bike/walking cross-over at Quarry Hill.  Mr. Alexandridis stated the widening of the main line underneath would not affect that structure.  Ms. Klock stated while she understands this, she is asking if they would consider giving something back to the community.

Mr. Alexandridis stated she may want to make a comment like this at the Public Hearing. 

 

Mr. Smith asked if the School District has seen this as it will impact the two elementary schools in the area; and Mr. Grilli stated they have not spoken to the School District, but they will make a note to do so.

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated they are showing sound barriers on the Clydesdale side northbound, but are showing nothing on the southbound side which is similar to the Clydesdale side.  Mr. Grilli stated there is a barrier in the area of Jockey’s Way on the southbound side.

Mr. Smith noted the open area facing the School. 

 

 

Mr. Walter Kossman, 185 River Road, asked how much wider the bridge will be up River than the current Bridge, and Mr. Pashanamei stated it would be up 100’ plus what is existing.  Mr. Kossman asked if there will be any sound barriers on the Bridge, and

Mr. Pashanamei stated they do not plan for those at this time on the Bridge.  Mr. Smith asked what environmental impact this will have by not putting sound barriers on the Bridge, and Mr. Pashanamei stated it did not meet the criteria as far as sound barriers.

 

Ms. Ruth Graver, 27 Concord Lane, stated when they first took the noise studies, their neighbors indicated they were putting out equipment to measure the noise level; and since she was not home, they did not put the equipment on her property and now she sees that they have stopped the sound barrier prior to her property.  She stated her home is very close to I-95; and even with the windows closed, she hears the noise.  Mr. Grilli stated the noise measurements are made solely to calibrate the noise prediction model.  The fact that they were not taken at her home has no bearing on the ultimate results of the noise analysis.  He stated they are predicting noise levels to the future year and they use a prediction model. 

 

Ms. Louise Oteri, Highland area, stated she lives on the hill, and she can hear everything.   She stated she had petitions circulated in the Highland, Concord, and Maplevale area last year because she understood they were going to mark their neighborhood for 35 miles per hour.  She stated this is a very residential area with many children.  She requested in the petition that the Police periodically enforce this once the signs were put up because people are going in excess of 40 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road.  She stated the Police have not put up lines to do a speed study, although they did put up a stop sign last year and it was very successful for two to three days; but they have done nothing

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 11 of 33

 

 

since.  She stated she has only seen a Police car go north of Dolington three times in the last year.  Mr. Smith stated these concerns with traffic should have been covered during Public Comment or when the presentation was made by the Citizens Traffic Commission members.  He asked if she has a question directed to these gentlemen.  Ms. Oteri asked how they determined that this area did not need a noise barrier since the houses back up directly to I-95.  Mr. Grilli stated it did not meet the criteria of warranted, feasible, and reasonable based on the noise levels predicted, the feasibility, and the reasonableness of cost and engineering.  Mr. Smith suggested that Ms. Oteri attend the next Citizens Traffic Commission meeting as they are considering this area at their next meeting on May 21.

 

Mr. Brent Monahan, Upton Lane, stated the sound levels will be significantly different in their area in the winter.  He stated in the summer the leaves on the trees do cut back on the sound.  He also noted the grinding of gears by the trucks particularly at 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.  Mr. Grilli stated many of the noise measurements are short term – twenty minute noise measurements - and there are also other 24 hour measurements to account for the different times of the day.  He stated climate is also a consideration as well that is factored into the noise model.  Mr. Monahan asked that they be cognizant of the fact that at Highland, which is directly south on Taylorsville Road on the westbound side, approximately 130 homes must make a hard left turn in the morning; and there are usually ten to twelve cars backed up between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.  He stated the Township should also be aware that this is a cut through that is not being enforced enough off of Dolington and Quarry Hill Road, and people are coming through at 35 mph and 40 mph.  He stated it would not therefore be 130 houses involved and would be like 400 houses.  He stated they may be creating something that will cause 50 car backups.

Mr. Pashanamei stated he feels one of the reasons this is occurring is because the Taylorsville Road Interchange is so bad in the morning, people are trying to find a better way to get on the Bridge; and they feel once the project is constructed, there will be different traffic movements.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Monahan to attend the Citizens Traffic Committee meeting on May 21 to discuss some of the concerns he raised.

 

Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road, stated he lives 200 yards from I-95, and the noise coming from the road is over five times louder than his outdoor compressor which is 67 dba.  Mr. Grilli stated their readings are based on peak traffic periods.  Mr. Rubin stated he challenges these readings.  Mr. Grilli stated there are three criteria, and one is “warranted” which relates to the 67dba; the others are “feasible” and “reasonable.”  He stated he cannot comment what specifically kept Mr. Rubin’s neighborhood out of the barrier mix.  Mr. Rubin stated his area is on the other side of 332; and while he is not arguing for sound barriers for his neighborhood, he questions the readings.  He asked the maximum readings they obtained.  Mr. Grilli stated he has readings and predictions for the future along the entire corridor on both sides, and they could share them.  Mr. Rubin asked for the ranges, and Mr. Grilli stated there were some which were below 67 in the low 60s, and others go into the low to mid 70s.  He does not recall anything in the 80s range.  Mr. Rubin asked who reviews their measurements.  Mr. Alexandridis stated they

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 12 of 33

 

 

subcontracted out the entire project; and they have reviewed the figures and concur with them.  Mr. Pashanamei stated they have at previous meetings presented a board with sound readings that they measured both existing and predicted, and these are on their Website.  Mr. Alexandridis stated it is a FHAA noise model used to make these determinations; and these have been tested throughout the Country.

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated the criteria being used in PennDOT criteria, and Mr. Pashanamei agreed.  Mr. Santarsiero stated in New Jersey the sound barriers start very close to the River, and he has been told that NJDOT criteria is more favorable for putting up sound barriers.  Mr. Pashanamei stated this is incorrect and in fact, it is the other way around.

 

Mr. Dave Ripka, River Road, asked about the piers in the River, and it was noted they will have half the number of piers currently when they construct the new Bridge.

Mr. Pashanamei stated while the Bridge is being widened, the distance between the piers is longer.  There will be less restriction of water flow.  Mr. Ripka asked what will happen when the work is being done as he is concerned they will block the flow of the River, and there is already a problem with the River.  Mr. Pashanamei stated they are doing an analysis on this now.  They do not feel there will be any problems under normal flow conditions, and they are doing an analysis on what will happen when there is a heavy downpour.  He stated they do need to obtain a Permit from the regulatory agencies.

 

Ms. Doreen Holstrum, Highland, asked where the sound monitoring boxes were located, and asked if they were at grade level.  She stated they get a lot of noise coming down the slope from Newtown particularly from the trucks at night.  Mr. Grilli stated they were on a tripod.  Ms. Holstrum stated the noise shakes her house.  Mr. Grilli stated they did monitor this area, and they are not saying some of these areas are not experiencing levels above 67 dba; but for those areas where noise barriers are not proposed, it was not reasonable or feasible to install a noise barrier.  Mr. Alexandridis stated the model is what is predicting the noise level.  He stated they took measurements of what is there now.  Mr. Grilli stated they took the noise measurements with simultaneous traffic counts, and they then look at the peak period traffic counts and let the model predict the existing noise level; and to the extent that the predicted existing noise levels are close to the actual measured noise levels, they feel the model is well calibrated.  The standard for this is three decibels. 

 

Mr. Steve James, 1423 Wheatsheaf, stated they are discussing five lanes and four lanes, but what they are showing is three and three.  Mr. Grilli stated the five and four are on the Bridge itself.  He stated the three and three are on the Pennsylvania section of I-95 off the Bridge.  He stated lanes will be added in the northbound direction within the Taylorsville Road Interchange and dropped in the southbound direction within the Taylorsville Road Interchange.  Mr. James stated he has worked with sound for a long time and feels they need to re-calibrate their instruments.  He stated he does not feel they took sound level measurements when the trucks get on the edge of the road or use their Jake brakes or if

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 13 of 33

 

 

they took one of a loud motorcycle.  He asked if in their experience there have been any instances where the sound level was determined to be higher than 67, and the people then did a measurement and took it to Court or somehow appealed it to get sound barriers.  Mr. Grilli stated he did not know.  Mr. James stated he feels this is what they are going to get to.  Mr. Grilli stated when the measurements are taken, they are dealing with equivalent sound levels, averaged over a certain time period.  He stated if a truck did go over a rumble strip or used its Jake brakes, that is recorded.  He agreed it is difficult to mitigate those types of sounds. 

 

Ms. Margaret Murphy, 185 River Road, stated they are almost doubling the size of the bridge, moving it upstream about 100’, and she asked if the noise studies took into consideration that this will bring almost double the noise 100’ closer to the neighbors adjacent to the Bridge and up-River. Mr. Grilli stated they did take this into consideration in the design as shown.  He stated he would have to review the sound levels predicted but noted it is the combination of sound level and impact with the feasible and reasonable criteria which determines whether or not sound barriers would qualify.  He stated reasonable and feasible are based on how much noise benefit will be achieved by putting in the noise barrier, engineering issues, and cost effectiveness including the number of residences that are benefited by the noise barrier.  He stated it would be very difficult to have a cost effective noise barrier for a single home.  Ms. Murphy stated this would not be a single home as it is impacting a neighborhood that has been there for a long time.  She stated those in the area have been effected by the noise and the Bridge, and what is proposed will double that; and she feels it is unreasonable to her as a resident effected that what is proposed is acceptable.  Mr. Grilli stated there were no locations where sound levels doubled or where the future noise levels was more than a 10 dba increase over existing noise levels.  Ms. Murphy asked how the project is funded, and

Mr. Alexandridis stated it is funded by the Commission.  Ms. Murphy stated they are then the “deciders” and are also determining what is reasonable and feasible. Mr. Alexandridis stated they are using the FHAA criteria.  Ms. Murphy stated they could also use other criteria including input from the community that feel it is not reasonable.  Mr. Grilli stated they will be preparing a future document which is an environmental assessment document which is a Federal document so they are following the Federal criteria. 

Ms. Murphy stated they could do more than what the Federal Government requires. 

Mr. Grilli stated for the purpose of the environmental assessment, they must follow the Federal criteria.  Ms. Murphy stated for the purpose of noise abatement, they could do more.  Mr. Alexandridis stated they are following the criteria for the environmental assessment.   To the extent that the community feels that the criteria should be changed, this is something the community can indicate to the Commission.  Mr. Alexandridis stated the Commission would make the decision whether or not they would go beyond what is required by the Federal guidelines.  Mr. Santarsiero stated they cannot do less than what the Federal requires, but they can always do more.  Mr. Alexandridis stated there is no limit, but the Commission would make the decision. 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 14 of 33

 

 

Mr. Bill Jones, 1411 River Road, stated from Taylorsville Road to the River, the entire roadway is elevated so there is no shrubbery to protect them.  He stated the bridge over Taylorsville, the bridge over the Canal, and the Bridge itself result in not only road noise, but reverberation noise from the bottom of the Bridge.  He stated the noise levels are much lower during the peak times because the traffic is moving slower.  He stated if the traffic is moving quicker after the construction, it will be much higher than the predictions. 

 

Mr. Lazarus Hanley, 16 Maplevale Drive, stated they indicated the noise levels were done for a twenty-four hour period and this was probably not sufficient.  He stated there is a big difference in the noise based on atmospheric conditions.   Mr. Grilli stated they are using predicted noise levels so the model itself takes into account topography and atmospheric conditions.  Mr. Hanley stated the base line was based on a twenty-four test, and Mr. Grilli stated the baseline is a modeled base line, and they use the noise measurements to calibrate the model.  The model will predict existing noise levels, and they measure the noise levels to check the model.  Mr. Hanley stated he feels the base line which was done over twenty-four hours may not have been useful.  Mr. Grilli stated they use the existing measurements but the noise levels are 2030 noise levels with the project built.  Mr. Hanley stated he feels the existing signage is unsafe and it would be helpful for both north and south bound lanes to install a sign now that states, “All Through Traffic Shift Left.”  Mr. Alexandridis stated at the existing condition there are two through lanes with a lot of traffic coming down from 332 backed up by entrance ramps with stop signs, and this causes a lot of confusion because everything is going back into two lanes.  The project when built will have three lanes and two auxiliary lanes and that problem will be eliminated.  Mr. Hanley stated his concern is with the existing condition which will exist for a number of years.  Mr. Hanley also asked about the potential for a hanging structure to accommodate the bicycle/pedestrian traffic which would not require another lane on the Bridge.  He stated he feels this would be much less expensive that what they previously referred to.  Mr. Hanley also stated with regard to the existing conditions at Hilltop Lane, the traffic coming through comes off 332 and is going extremely fast through the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Brad Losher, Fairfield Road, noted the southbound area between Quarry Hill and Dolington Roads and stated there is a barrier on both sides of that section; and he asked if it will create a vacuum which will increase the sound because there is this space. 

Mr. Grilli stated if they find that this occurs, they will use some type of sound absorptive material.  Mr. Losher stated he feels this area is currently Township-owned open space/ farmland and asked if they could replace this with vegetation in lieu of crops. 

Mrs. Godshalk stated this is Farmland Preservation land.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Matt Maloney, member of the Farmland Preservation Corporation, to discuss this at their next meeting. 

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 15 of 33

 

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated many of the areas where the sound barriers are proposed to be constructed are depressed, and she feels the sound will just go over the barriers. 

Mr. Grilli stated these may be put at the top of the slope nearer to the right-of-way fence as opposed to the right next to the roadway. 

 

Mr. Albert Skerb, 29 Concord Lane,  stated it appears the sound barrier is going to stop right at his property, and he feels this will impair the value of his property.  He is concerned about paying his property taxes if the Township allows this to go through.

He stated they have indicated the rules on what is to be put up are not limited by the Federal Government, and he feels they should write to their Representatives that nothing further should be appropriated for this project until the question of sound barriers is resolved.  He feels this project will cost more than $300 million dollars, and sound barriers covering the entire area should be included.  He stated approximately 18 months ago he was at a presentation similar to this, and they indicated there was a sound device on his property that indicated the predicted noise was going to be such that a sound barrier would be warranted; and now he sees that the proposed sound barrier stops just short of his property.  He stated he was also present at a meeting approximately three months ago when this topic came up, and the Board of Supervisors mentioned visiting Governor Rendell and commenting on this project as well as visiting with one of the Commissioners; and he hopes that they will push forward with this. 

 

Mr. Smith noted Mr. Steil is present this evening on another matter and is hearing these comments.  He hopes he will convey these concerns to the Governor and others in Harrisburg.  Mr. Santarsiero stated while it would be good for Representative Steil and the other elected State and Federal Representatives to get involved with this, the Board of Supervisors has to be involved in this as well which is why he brought this up to the Governor when he met with him in December and also discussed it with Commissioner Weisman in the past; and he feels they should continue this pressure.   He stated if the barriers were continued along the lines the citizens have requested, the cost would not be great taking into consideration the entire cost of the project.  He stated while some areas may or may not meet the criteria, although he questions the model being used, they need to keep pressure on to get this done.   Mr. Smith stated while he agrees with Mr. Santarsiero, Mr. Steil is present this evening and he has heard about this tonight and there are concerns for the residents.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Steil to do what he can to convey this message.

 

Mr. Robert  Parmerly , 9 Highland Drive, asked with the increase in impervious surface due to the widening to the inside, will they consider detention of the water; and

Mr. Pashanamei stated they will look into this.  Mr. Parmerly stated he has seen clear sound barriers used on Bridges so that it would not impede the view.  Mr. Pashanamei stated there are a number of ways to install barriers on Bridges, but they are not showing these because the model did not indicate they were warranted.  

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 16 of 33

 

 

Mr. Steve Meyers, 1449 Robinson Place stated they are discussing statistical averages versus quality of life.  He stated their quality of life is being compromised by the spikes in the noise level.  He encouraged them to go beyond the minimum. 

 

Mr. Smith stated the Township is being impacted by various noises including trains, planes, and traffic.  He thanked those representing the project for coming to the Township and stated these are people with real concerns.  He stated they hope they will convey these concerns to those who make the decisions that the quality of life of these people is being impacted. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he is happy that they are having a discussion of at least extending the barriers, and he feels it would be helpful if they would get an estimate on what the cost differential would be to continue the barriers along the lines discussed this evening. 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated he feels it is good that they get public input, but it is only valuable if they take it to heart and take it back to those involved in making the decision.  He stated they want to maintain the quality of life and property values for the residents. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated she would like to see something on paper of the actual impact with moving it north 100’ including the properties to be taken over.  She stated she feels many more properties will be impacted than what they saw on the computer-generated slide. 

Mr. Pashanamei stated they are in the process of evaluating the right-of-way impact.  They are trying to come up with solutions to minimize the impact with regard to right-of-way.  This should be done within the next few months.  The plan is to notify the homeowners who will be impacted and meet with them prior to the Public Hearing. 

 

 

ELM LOWNE PRESENTATION AND APPROVE PROPOSAL OF ARTISTS CIRCLE

 

Ms. Jo Norum was present with Ms. Jennifer Stark.  Ms. Norum presented a portion of the Minutes from their last meeting discussing allowing the Artists Circle, a new group formed after CAPS went out of business, to run a program at Elm Lowne in the summer.  She stated they are charging the standard Park & Recreation Fees.  Ms. Norum stated it will be far less intrusive than the prior program as they have a much simpler program.  They are requesting approval from the Board to allow this program. 

 

Mr. Smith stated he was at the Elm Lowne meeting when they recommended approval of this proposal.  Ms. Norum stated they are satisfied that they will keep the property in good condition.  Ms. Stark stated they did include contingencies in the Motion made such as protection of the floor and furniture and restoring the house to the condition it was in before they started the program. 

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 17 of 33

 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated in Item C they included Artists Circle would have liability insurance, and he stated they should include that the Township is named as an additional insured and that the Township be provided a copy of the Certificate. 

 

Mr. Caiola asked if they feel this organization will have a future at Elm Lowne such that it would be extended beyond the summer, and Ms. Norum stated she is not certain as they just formed and they each teach in their own venues during the rest of the year.  She stated if it were successful, she feels they would like to continue with a summer program at Elm Lowne.  Mr. Smith stated it was also going to involve mostly Lower Makefield children, and Ms. Norum agreed.   Ms. Caiola stated it is good that people know enough about Elm Lowne to have an interest in utilizing the property. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero moved and Mr. Stainthorpe seconded to approve the proposal for the Artists Circle as set forth in the outline provided by Ms. Norum with the additional proviso that the liability insurance include Lower Makefield Township as an additional insured and the Township receive a copy of the Certificate of Insurance. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk asked who will be responsible for cleaning.  Ms. Norum stated they are responsible for cleaning in the rooms they are using, but she added the Committee is in the process of putting together a regular cleaning crew on a bi-weekly basis during the spring, summer, and fall who will clean the remainder of the house.  Mrs. Godshalk stated there was a problem with the other group, and the Township had to get heavy-duty cleaners.  Ms. Norum stated this is a different situation as they will not have the same amount of material brought in as did the other group.  Mrs. Godshalk stated there was a problem with mice because they left food out.  She stated she does like the idea of art classes, but someone must make sure that when they leave at night, it must be cleaned and they cannot leave things around.  Ms. Norum stated she and Bob will be keeping on top of this.  Mrs. Godshalk stated other people will be coming in to look at the house while the art program is occupying it, and they must make sure that it is kept clean.

 

Motion carried unanimously.

 

A short recess was taken at this time.  The meeting was re-convened at 10:00 p.m.

 

 

APPROVE PURCHASE OF 2007 FORD E-450XL HORTON 533 TYPE II AMBULANCE

 

Mr. Hank Lawrence was present and stated they went out to bid to four different ambulance manufacturers and received bids back from three.   He stated the Horton ambulance is the most expensive ambulance, but it is also the safest ambulance.

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 18 of 33

 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe noted that two of the companies made bids that did not meet nineteen to twenty of the specifications in the bid.  Mr. Stainthorpe noted they Budgeted $150,000 for this ambulance.

 

Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mrs. Godshalk seconded and it was unanimously carried to approve the purchase of the ambulance at a cost of $142,617.60 from VCI Emergency Vehicle Specialists.

 

 

DISCUSSION OF DISABLED PERSONS ADVISORY BOARD

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE HANDICAPPED ACCESS AT THE TOWNSHIP BUILDING

 

Ms. Lisa Huchler-Smith and Mr. David Rogers were present.  Ms. Huchler-Smith thanked the Township for doing the work at the front of the Township Building by resurfacing the ramp and installing additional lighting. She stated these improvements have made a huge difference to enable their Committee members and the public to enter the building.  She stated there is another entrance used by the public which is the entrance to the Tax Office.  She stated their Committee has used this entrance on occasion as they use the Tax Office meeting room and elderly and disabled people use this entrance to pay their taxes.  She stated the concrete surface is unsafe for those using a cane or walker. 

 

Ms. Rebecca Cecchine, Tax Collector, was present.  She stated the Township has tried to keep things up to Code, but there is a problem in that area.  She stated people also come in at that location at times other than paying their taxes.  She noted particularly the width of the door. She stated the Township has also tried to adjust the doors, but they are still very heavy.  She stated the Disabled Persons Advisory Board asked for her suggestions as to what could be done.

 

Ms. Huchler-Smith stated they are proposing to have Mr. Fedorchak look into their requests including re-doing the surface, adding some additional lighting, and looking into the door situation.  She noted there are two doors, and they would like there to be an automatic button.  She stated the inner door also needs to be addressed as she does not feel it is up to current Code since it is from the 1960’s.

 

Mr. Smith asked if they need any changes to the upstairs entrance; and Ms. Huchler-

Smith stated ideally it would be good to have a push button at that door as well.   She noted they have a Committee member who is in a wheelchair, and she must wait to have someone open the door.  She stated they would like to give the residents an opportunity to be independent and this would help.  Mr. Rodgers stated this is not just a disabled persons’ issue, but is also an elderly persons’ issue.  He stated overall the Township has done a great job of improving accessibility for the disabled. 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 19 of 33

 

 

Mr. Smith stated Ms. Derr from the Seniors Group was concerned with the entrance situation for their membership.  He feels this is something they should move ahead with.  Mr. Fedorchak was asked to look into this and come back with cost estimates. 

Mr. Fedorchak stated he would like to meet with the Disabled Persons Advisory Board to discuss this further.

 

Ms. Cecchine stated she would also like to have one additional handicap parking spot at her entrance.  She currently only has one.  Ms. Huchler-Smith stated they are in compliance with the ADA rules, but she feels it would be beneficial to have another handicap space.  Mr. Fedorchak was asked to look into this as well.

 

 

DISCUSSION OF PENNSBURY SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPOSING A 1% EARNED INCOME TAX UNDER ACT 1 – TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT

 

Mr. Ethan Shiller, Citizens Budget Commission, stated on May 15, a Referendum will be on the ballot from the Pennsbury School District as required by State Act 1.   He stated the question will be “Do you favor the Pennsbury School District imposing an earned income tax, an EIT, at a rate of 1%. The revenue generated from the tax will be used to reduce School District taxes on qualified residential properties by an estimated $364.” 

Mr. Shiller stated on April 16, the Citizens Budget Commission discussed this issue, and for a number of reasons felt this should be voted down; and they would recommend to the Board of Supervisors and all Lower Makefield Township residents to vote “no.”  He stated the justification being given is to reduce property taxes or provide relief, and they do not feel the tax relief is provided fairly across the board for all residents and feel this is only a shifting of taxes based on an individual’s income.  He stated they do understand the needs of the Senior Citizens in the Township, and they feel the State Legislators have not done it properly or provided them any real reduction in their property taxes; and if the Township and the Seniors were to support this, the State Legislators would not address this issue in real terms and instead indicate they provided a solution.  Mr. Shiller stated they do not feel that this is a solution but is simply $364.00 in the first year to $700 in the second year which would only be given if you submitted your Homestead forms for getting an appropriate rebate.  The Committee would recommend having all the Supervisors stand behind the Committee’s recommendation to vote “no.”

 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated he has his own concerns with this issue, but is uneasy about the Board of Supervisors intruding in School Board affairs.  He stated he is not clear why the Township’s Citizen Budget Commission, which was appointed to help manage the Township’s Budget, is involved in Pennsbury School District taxes.  He feels if any one of the Supervisors wants to take a stand against this as an individual, this would be fine; but he does not feel it is the business of the Board of Supervisors to take a position as a Board.  He stated he feels they are present to consider the business of Lower Makefield Township. 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 20 of 33

 

 

Mr. Caiola stated he agrees that they should not take a position as a Board.  He stated it is an issue that is “under the radar,” and everyone should know that the Board has no control over this tax.  It was discussed at the Budget Commission meeting; and they felt that since it does impact all Township residents, it was worthy of discussion.  He does agree  that they do not need a Resolution of the Board indicating their position on this, but it is something that is educational for the Township residents.  He stated this is not part of the Lower Makefield Township Budget.  He stated the Board members have only one vote on this as do all Township residents.  He stated the reason it was not supported by the Citizens Budget Commission was because they did not feel it benefited a majority of the Lower Makefield Township residents. 

 

Mr. Smith asked what percentage of the Pennsbury School District taxes, does Lower Makefield Township pay.  Mr. Shiller stated 60% of Lower Makefield taxes go toward the Pennsbury School District’s Budget of $168 million.  Mr. Smith stated he feels that the overwhelming majority of taxes that hit Lower Makefield Township are School District taxes, and Mr. Shiller agreed.  Mr. Shiller stated he believes it is the purview of the Board of Supervisors to get involved in the Lower Makefield Township residents’ lives dealing with Township issues or dealing with the Pennsbury School District. 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated he feels they are setting a dangerous precedent.  He stated the Supervisors are elected to manage the Township – the Police Department, Public Works Department, and supervise the Township Manager.  He stated there is an elected Pennsbury School Board, and Mr. Shiller is a candidate for that position; and he feels that is where they should take these issues.  He stated his position is not limited to the School Board; and he does not feel they should endorse Resolutions about National issues, State issues, or International issues.  Mr. Smith stated he feels the Board of Supervisors are leaders of the Township and have a duty to speak out on issues which effect the residents.  He stated he does not feel the School Board has imposed the tax; but rather this is coming from the Legislature and the Governor, and the School Board is not to be blamed for this. 

Mr. Smith stated he is concerned that this issue has gone under the radar; and if this goes through, a 1% tax will be imposed.  He feels the Board of Supervisors has an obligation to speak out on issues which impart the Township residents.  Mrs. Godshalk stated she agrees with Mr. Smith and feels they should let people know about this.  She stated the School District was told by Act 1 from the State Legislature and the Governor that they had to allow this to go on the ballot.  She stated this will help some residents and will hurt some residents.  She feels the residents should be informed and then exercise their feelings as to how it will effect them.  She stated it will help Seniors who have a lower income and will hurt those with a higher income. 

 

Mr. Shiller stated based on the 2000 Census, 13% of the Seniors make up the population of the Pennsbury School District; however, 20% of the population make up the renters, and they do not have a high income and they will be highly impacted and will not receive

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 21 of 33

 

 

any kind of Homestead Rebate.  Mrs. Godshalk stated they therefore need to get out and vote.

 

Representative David Steil was present and stated he is not present to support or not support the Referendum.  He stated the Pennsbury School District has not done a very good job of providing the correct information, and in fact have given false numbers. 

He stated the ballot question indicates $364 which is incorrect as the number is $727.00.  He stated they cut the number in half because they assumed that in the first year, they would only collect half.  He stated it does not make any difference when you collect it, you have to pay it; because when you impose an earned income tax of 1%, it generates enough revenue to provide every household $727.00; and although, you may not collect it immediately, it has to be paid.  He stated ultimately everyone who qualifies receives the $727.00.  He stated this makes the calculation easy as there is a 1% earned income tax and a $727.00 benefit; and if you divide $727.00 by .01, you get $72,700.  He stated if your income falls below that number, you would benefit; but if it falls above that number, you will not benefit.  He stated there are many people who are not retired who live in Lower Makefield Township who would benefit by this.  He noted most of the people employed by the Township – the Police Officers, roads people, and administrative people do not earn $72,700 a year, so they will benefit from the Referendum.  He stated the point they want to make is if you benefit you should vote for it; and if you do not benefit, you will probably not vote for it.  He stated in Lower Makefield Township, the current median family income is $113,851.  He stated he also represents Yardley Borough, and there the median income is $67,577 so many of them would benefit from this.

 

Mr. Steil stated he agrees that this is a shift; but added that if they want to relieve property taxes, unless there is a way to cut School District spending by 10% to 25%, there will have to be a shift.  He stated they need to decide if they want to shift it on a local basis which would mean all of the revenue generated stays in Lower Makefield and stays within the School District.  He stated they could also have raised the State sales or income tax but then a great portion of those dollars would have gone somewhere else.  He stated this particular Referendum is really about everyone looking at their own personal tax situation and determining whether or not it benefits them. 

 

Mr. Smith stated he has indicated that the School District put false numbers on the ballot question, which he feels is a harsh indictment.  Mr. Steil agreed and stated they are in the process of determining what action to take as the Department of State, the Department of Education, and the Governor’s Office have all concurred that the ballot question as it is framed is not in compliance with Act 1.  Mr. Smith stated they are now faced with a Referendum using these numbers.  Mr. Steil stated it is a very severe criticism of whoever was responsible for framing the language.  He stated they have asked the Pennsbury School District to correct this language, but they have not yet determined what, if anything, they are going to do about it.  Mr. Smith stated the people are being asked to vote on this in two weeks.  He stated at this late date, he feels the only legal

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 22 of 33

 

 

action which could be taken would be injunctive relief.  Mr. Steil stated the Pennsbury School District could do a mailing to every household advising them that their number was incorrect and the correct number in accordance with Act 1 should be $727.00.  They stated they could also acquire adhesive stickers to put over the ballot machine changing $364 to $727 or the Pennsbury School District could find themselves paying for a special election.

 

Mr. Smith stated they could vote it down and send it back to the Legislators to see if they can come up with something better.  Mr. Steil stated the question is what would be something better.  He stated they considered hundreds of proposals last year, and this was the only proposal that got 102 votes.  He stated everything that is in Act 1 has to be in any piece of tax relief legislation.  The only other thing that would remain is to decide what other tax they want to raise and put the money into the property tax relief fund created by Act 1 and distribute it.  Mr. Smith stated people across the State were promised tax relief from gambling revenues.  Mr. Steil stated he discussed this when he held his public meeting at the Township on April 19; and there are three parts to Act 1 – one is the gaming money which will probably come in 2009 and should be about $250 per household;  the second part is $975 maximum for people over 65 who are in lower income levels down to approximately $375 for those that approach $35,000 of income; and the third is the shift which could mean for those earning less than $72,700 of income approximately $727 a year.  He stated together this could be a maximum for someone of $1,900. 

 

Mr. Caiola again asked about the number being placed on the ballot question; and

Mr. Steil stated they agree on the number, but the School District cut the number in half on the ballot question because they made the assumption, with no data to support it, that they would only collect half in the first year.  He agreed that it is a new tax in the Pennsbury School District, and they will probably not collect 100%; but eventually all the people who owe the 1% will be collected from, and when they are collected from, that has to be paid. 

 

Ms. Helene Kahn stated she sat in on some of the District Budget meetings, and she understood that they would only be able to keep 2% of the money they collected; and it would in fact cost them 2 ˝% to 3% to get the money.  She asked where the extra money is coming from.  Mr. Steil stated they are allowed to keep 2% of the money they collect to handle administrative expenses.   If they exceed the 2%, it will be the responsibility of the School District to pay this so it will come out of the School District tax money.

 

Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road, stated there is a threshold to be reached before the slot machine money can be rebated back to the School Districts.  He asked if this Referendum would impact gaming money going to the School District.  Mr. Steil stated it has no impact on it at all.  He stated if this is defeated, they will still get the

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 23 of 33

 

 

gaming money when it becomes available probably in 2009.  He stated this would be for anyone who filed the Homestead exemption. 

 

Ms. Virginia Torbert stated she agrees with Mr. Stainthorpe that it is not appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to take a position.  She feels they can provide information to the residents, and the residents should vote on what they feel is correct.  She stated she felt if an earned income tax was passed, normally the School District would share some of this with the Township.  Mr. Steil stated if the School District had enacted the earned income tax under Act 511, they would have been required to share half with the Township, if the Township requested it.   He stated this is being assessed under Act 1 which does not have the sharing provision.  The Township does have the ability to impose up to a 1% earned income tax if they wish.  The School District is now barred from imposing any kind of an income tax other than what the people approve. 

 

Ms. Helen Bosley, 546 Palmer Farm Drive, stated she recalls when there were other issues with respect to the Pennsbury School District, the Solicitor made it clear that this was not the purview of the Board of Supervisors; and in fact, they should guard against commentary.  Mr. Truelove stated that was related to the Re-Districting issue when there were certain questions asked about expansion to the Makefield School and the possibility of impervious surface issues.  He stated in that instance, because the School District may become an Applicant before the Township, and if the Township decides they want to take a position, it would have been premature to do that before they saw a Plan.  Ms. Bosley stated she is a member of the Golf Committee, and the Chairman of the Golf Committee is the one who comes to speak to the Board.  She asked who is the Chair of the Citizens Budget Committee.  Mr. Caiola stated he does not feel they elected a Chair.  Ms. Bosley stated normally it is the Chairman of the Committee who comes to talk to the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Smith stated they have also had times when the Chair Person was not available and representatives have stood in.  He stated he was thankful that Mr. Shiller was present to provide information from the Committee.  He stated if Ms. Bosley were present to report on the Golf Committee if no one else were present, they would appreciate that as well.  Ms. Bosley stated they do have a Chair and Vice Chair on the Golf Committee. 

 

Mr. Steil made available copies of the power point presentation made on April 19.

 

Ms. Rebecca Cecchine, 9 Manor Lane North, stated she does not feel it is ever wrong to try to educate the residents.  She stated there are residents who do not get the paper, do not have Internet, and work long hours and do not have time to look into these issues so she does not feel there is ever a wrong time to educate the residents.  She stated she did get a PDF file from the School District trying to convert it into a file that they can tabulate the number of assessments; and she stated currently for the Pennsbury School District which includes Lower Makefield, Tullytown, Falls, and Yardley Borough, there are 17,160 approved Homestead exemptions as of March 1.  She stated she has heard that

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 24 of 33

 

 

a lot of residents were afraid to turn this in because they felt that if they handed it in, they would have automatically been taxed 1%.  She stated this is why she feels there is never a wrong time to educate the residents.  Ms. Cecchine stated on the form that was filled out for approval, there was a question about how much of your home was being used as a business; and she has found out that if you have 80% or higher of your home being used as your primary residence, you get the full $727.  If you are under the 80%, they would pro rate the amount that you get back.  Ms. Cecchine stated there is a Newsletter that will be coming out shortly from the School District to everyone in the District.  She stated she could try to get extra copies available at the Tax Office for those who do not get one. 

 

Mr. Smith asked if she was part of the Task Force, and Ms. Cecchine stated she was. 

Mr. Smith asked how many people were on the Task Force; and Ms. Cecchine stated it was seven to nine.  She stated there were three from Lower Makefield.  They met for two months.  She stated most of the people that were on the Tax Commission did not want to do either the EIT or PIT tax; but they did have a School Board member attend one of the meetings and she said to them that she felt they were not doing their job unless they recommended either an EIT or PIT tax, so they did recommend the EIT tax.  Mr. Smith stated it appears that before this individual came to them, the Task Force was not going to recommend either tax; and Ms. Cecchine stated this would be her opinion. 

 

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Steil has indicated one number is on the Ballot which is 50% less; and Ms. Cecchine stated when she was on the Tax Commission, she recalls they only talked about the $727 figure.  She was asked to speak to the Edgewood School PTO regarding the Referendum, and she was surprised that they had cut it to $364.  She stated when she was on the Commission they only talked about the $727.  She stated they were only there to recommend the EIT or PIT Tax and the number placed on the Ballot was done by the School Board. 

 

Mr. Caiola stated they were not going to support either tax even with the higher number; and Ms. Cecchine stated while she does not want to talk for the entire Task Force, they did not want to proceed with either one; but a School Board member came out and advised that another School District’s Task Force did not vote in favor of either; and they did not want them to come up with that recommendation, and indicated that they had not done their job until they recommended one or the other. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk asked the total homeowners in the District, and Ms. Cecchine stated in Lower Makefield she has 11,942 parcels and she feels approximately 10,000 are Residential; but they must recognize that they are discussing primary home and not just Residential.  She stated if you have a rental property it is not counted; and if you live in another State, it is not counted. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he feels that there is a distinction between the Board raising this issue for public comment and discussing National issues.  He stated this issue has a direct

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 25 of 33

 

 

impact on the people in the community as did the re-Districting issue, so he feels it is appropriate for the Board to raise it.  He noted the Board of Supervisors does not have any special power over this, and they are only five citizens like the rest of the citizens of the Township who will be asked to vote on this. 

 

Mr. Caiola stated he feels that had they not done this a lot of people would have gone to the polls and seen a number that is substantially different from what Representative Steil has indicated should be listed on the ballot.  He stated the Board of Supervisors is trying to keep everything out in the open including the Budget process.  He feels it is important that the residents hear about all sides of this issue to determine how it impacts them.  He feels this has not received the press and output that was needed to discuss something that will have an impact on the residents.  He feels the Schools are excellent; but he feels there should be more people sharing the burden for education, and they should not keep going back to the same people asking them for more. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated she feels it is good to discuss this but feels each person should look at this individually as it will be helpful for some and result in a higher tax burden for others.

 

Mr. Smith stated he is very concerned when their State Representative advises that the figures are wrong and when a member of the Task Force states that they were ready to vote down the EIT and PIT and a School Board member advised them that they had to come up with something rather than what they had a consensus for.  He stated he is also concerned that it is less than two weeks before they have to vote on a Referendum that will effect everyone in the Township and it is so convoluted.  He asked how they can go to the polls and support something that is so vague.  He feels the Township officials have the duty to state their positions.  He feels the State Legislators and the Governor can do better than what they have given, and he feels the people should vote “no” on May 15.

 

 

AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 362 PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND STORAGE OF FIREWORKS

 

Mr. Truelove stated this Ordinance was considered last year, and sent to the Planning Commission who made comments; and corrections were then made.  It is now ready for advertisement.

 

Mr. Santarsiero moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to authorize advertisement of Ordinance No. 362. 

 

 

 

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 26 of 33

 

 

 

DISCUSSION OF PRIMARY BALLOT QUESTION CONCERNING SMALL GAMES OF CHANCE

 

Mr. Truelove noted this is a Referendum question which will be on the ballot.   He stated this matter was discussed by the Board of Supervisors a number of months ago and submitted to the Board of Elections which approved it.  Mr. Truelove read the question which will appear as follows:  “Do you favor the issuance of Licenses to conduct small games of chance in Lower Makefield Township.”  He stated the accompanying “Plain English” statement reads as follows:  “The Pennsylvania Local Option Small Games of Chance Act authorized eligible non-profit organizations to obtain a License from the Bucks County Treasurer to conduct small games of chance to raise funds to promote their charitable or civic purposes.  Small Games of Chance are defined as punch boards, daily drawings, raffles, and pull tabs.  Eligible organizations include non-profit charitable, religious, Fraternal, and Veteran’s organizations, clubs, civic, and service associations.

The Bucks County Treasurer can issue Licenses to eligible organizations to conduct small games of chance if the voters approve the issuance of such Licenses within Lower Makefield Township.  A “yes” vote on this Ballot Question will authorize the Bucks County Treasurer to issue Licenses to eligible organizations to conduct small games of chance in Lower Makefield Township.”

 

Mr. Truelove stated this does not authorize gambling in Lower Makefield Township and is not part of the Gaming Law which was passed for casinos.  However, it does enable organizations such as the Seniors, baseball and soccer organizations, and other charitable non-profit and church groups to conduct fundraising allowing Bingo, casino nights, etc.

if they meet the criteria submitted to the County Treasurer. 

 

Mr. Smith stated the Board of Supervisors already unanimously approved putting this matter on the Ballot. 

 

 

APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 369 INSURING THAT COMPETENT CONTRACTORS BE HIRED TO PERFORM WORK ON PUBLIC PROJECTS

 

Mr. Santarsiero moved and Mr. Caiola seconded approval of Ordinance No. 369.

 

Mr. Stainthorpe stated he was initially in favor of this and felt it was an excellent idea especially in light of what they went through with Metra and felt this would give them a greater definition of what a “responsible contractor” would be.  He reviewed this when he received the packet, and noted there are number of provisions that require that the contractors have formal apprenticeship training programs as noted in the fourth “Whereas” and also in Item #9 under Section 3.  He stated his concern is this would pretty much eliminate any non-Union contractor from doing work in the Township as he

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 27 of 33

 

 

understands that only Union contractors have formal apprenticeship programs.  He stated if they eliminate a whole class of contractor, they will get less competition, they will have a smaller pool of potential bidders, and they will essentially end up paying significantly more for projects in the Township.  He would be in favor of the Ordinance if those provisions were removed.  He stated he feels any time that you exclude a group from doing business with the Township, ultimately the taxpayers are the ones who get hurt.  He added the Township is already required by State law to pay prevailing wage, which is essentially Union wage; and because of this a lot of Township projects cost more than they would in the private sector.  He stated when you eliminate the non-Union contractor, you have also set up a situation where you now have Union work rules; and they demand that a certain size crew be on including a certain number of Master Craftsmen, a certain number of Apprentices;  and all of these items ultimately run up the cost to the taxpayers.  He stated while this Ordinance was well intentioned, he feels the actual result of requiring a formal Apprenticeship program would be to bar non-Union labor; and they would become exclusively a Union Township.  He stated he is not in favor of barring the Unions either, and feels they should come in and compete; but he feels going exclusive any one way is always dangerous.  He noted specifically the Pennsylvania Convention Center which was almost ruined because it was exclusively Union law and involved a lot of the workplace laws which raised the cost so high people stopped coming. 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe moved to amend Ordinance #369 whereas they would eliminate the fourth “Whereas” and Item #9 in Section 3.

 

Mr. Smith stated at the last meeting, Mr. Stainthorpe made a Motion to approve this; and Mr. Stainthorpe agreed, but noted he apparently did not read it carefully enough, and he has now reconsidered his position.

 

Mr. Caiola stated they have looked at other communities in the area who have something comparable to this, and he asked Mr. Santarsiero or Mr. Truelove to share their experiences with regard to whether the apprenticeship program is critical to getting the bids they need or have they found other contractors without the apprenticeship program that have worked.  Mr. Santarsiero stated it is not true that Unions are the only contractors that have apprenticeship programs.  He stated this Ordinance applies only to contracts that are $75,000 or above; and it would not apply at all if it were below $75,000.  He stated in the event that they receive bids that do not comport to one or more of the requirements in this, such that they received three bids for a job and none of the bidders had apprenticeship programs, it would not preclude the Township from choosing one of those bidders.  He stated it is not the case that they are excluding anyone from being able to bid in the Township on these types of projects.  He stated with respect to the experience of other Townships, their experience has been overwhelmingly positive in that they have gotten more qualified bidders, the work done was better than it had been before, and over time those Townships have saved money.  He stated in terms of any significant cost increase, the opposite is true; and it has helped Townships save money

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 28 of 33

 

 

and cut costs.  Mr. Santarsiero stated if the Motion to amend is seconded, he would vote against that Amendment. 

 

Mr. Truelove stated it was his understanding that other Townships and Municipalities have had good experience with this type of Ordinance.  He stated it is difficult for employers to get good blue-collar day labor, and an apprenticeship program has been increasingly used as an inducement to get good quality people to get into the programs and stay; and the feeling among many contractors both Union and non-Union is that they have quality people doing the work who are trained.  He stated there is a State Board of Apprenticeship that is staffed by Union and non-Union people, and they work together on developing the qualifications for Apprenticeship programs to rise to the Journeyman status. 

 

Mr. Stainthorpe asked which Townships have this and asked if there is documentation as to the impact on costs.  Mr. Truelove stated he does not have any specific documentation, but he is aware that Middletown, Lower Southampton, Falls Township, and some Townships in Montgomery County as well as a number of School Districts have such Ordinances/Resolutions.    

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated in Middletown Township when they constructed their Municipal Complex, a contractor was used who did not have an apprenticeship program; and as a result, the Township has had significant problems with the work.  He stated the building has numerous problems, and it is going to cost Middletown Township a significant amount of money to retrofit things that were done during the construction of the building.

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated they are not only discussing contractors, but are also considering sub-contractors.  She stated sometimes sub-contractors are a small group who may not have an apprenticeship program.  Mrs. Godshalk stated she is also concerned with the employment of illegal aliens – undocumented workers.  She stated throughout the Ordinance she has read that they must follow Federal law; but she has been advised that this is not sufficient because there are 10 to 20 million undocumented, illegal aliens in the Country and many of them are in the construction business.  She stated when they passed the Management Contact for the Golf Course, they specifically indicated there could be no illegal aliens.  Mrs. Godshalk stated while it has been indicated that it is written in the law, a number of corporations do not follow this; and she feels it should be spelled out in this Ordinance. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk also noted Page #6, Section #7 where it states “you shall not be permitted to use a sub-contractor or any work performed for Lower Makefield Township unless it has identified the sub-contractor on its sub-contractor’s list and provide a sub-contractor responsibility certification in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of this Ordinance.”  Mrs. Godshalk stated when she went to look for Section 5, there was no Section 5 in the material they had been provided; and it ends at Section 3 and then goes

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 29 of 33

 

on to Section 7.  Mr. Santarsiero stated while he agrees some material is missing; they did previously receive all the information; and the Board unanimously voted to approve this, and the entire Ordinance was before them at that time.  He stated it was also all before them two meetings before that when they voted originally to advertise it.  He stated while the copy before them this evening does not have Page 5, they have had a full copy in the past.  Mrs. Godshalk stated voting to advertise does not mean they are voting to approve it.  Mr. Santarsiero stated his point is that they have received a full copy previously and reviewed it before at least twice. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk seconded the Motion to Amend as stated by Mr. Stainthorpe but added she would also like to Amend it to the suggestions she made after that. 

 

Ms. Helen Bosley, 546 Palmer Farm Drive, stated she is in favor of the Amendment. 

She stated she believes there are Township residents who are business people who may choose to do business with the Township, and she would not want them excluded if they do not have an apprenticeship program.  She stated it is inappropriate to limit and to provide barriers for contractors and particularly for residents who may in fact be the

types of individuals who would like to do business in their home town.  She stated

Mr. Santarsiero indicated that in the case there were three bids, it is possible that if none of the bidders had an apprenticeship program, the lowest bidder would win.  She asked what would happen when the apprenticeship program contractor is the highest bidder, and the other two bids are non-apprenticeship program bidders; and Mr. Santarsiero stated in that instance they would go with the apprenticeship contractor because that would be the one who complied with the Ordinance.  Ms. Bosley stated this means that they would spend more money as a result of this Ordinance even though there were other qualified bidders. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated in the case of Metra, the Board voted to go with a higher cost bidder precisely because they did not believe at that time that Metra was a responsible bidder.  He stated the situation Ms. Bosley is describing is no different than the situation where the Board unanimously voted six months ago to undertake with respect with Metra as they had a concern about them being a responsible bidder.  He stated the purpose of the Ordinance is to make sure that the Township hires the most responsible bidder possible and that they do not get locked in with having to hire a low bidder who ultimately may not be responsible.  He stated in the case of Metra, the Township lost at the Court; and it was because of that uncertainty that you deal with in Court that might review a decision of the Board if the Board comes to a determination that a particular contractor is not responsible without having first enacted an Ordinance that sets forth fairly clearly what responsible means; and they put themselves at risk of having a contractor who in the long run will do work that they do not find acceptable and is going to buy the Township into increased costs in the future and very likely litigation.

 

Ms. Bosley stated she supports the Amendment because she feels this Ordinance as written is a veiled way to have only Union contractors for work above $75,000 in the

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 30 of 33

 

 

Township, and she does not feel this is appropriate for the Township to do as it eliminates possibly 75% of other contractors who may be out there willing to do the job.  She stated the Township has to pay prevailing wage anyway, and she feels this works.  Ms. Bosely asked if this would also apply to the Golf Course noting that they do, in fact, have Kemper Sports managing.  Mr. Truelove stated that is a Service Contract and this would not apply. 

 

Mr. Zachary Rubin, 1661 Covington Road stated he is against the Amendment and feels there is an anti-Union bias by the maker of the Motion to Amend.  He stated he is a member of a Union and strongly supports using Union labor and Union shops.  He stated he is an educator at a Vocational High School and is quite familiar with apprenticeship programs.  He stated their graduates go out into the building trades into an apprenticeship and get high-level training to perform their skills, and there is no question that a Union contractor with an apprenticeship program provides high quality work and a non-Union contractor could do it at a lower price and have shoddy work that must be revisited.  He stated apprenticeships make marginally less money than a journey person or a master craftsman; so in the long run when a Union contractor uses apprenticeships sometimes their salary schedules are substantially lower than a non-Union contractor.  He stated the maker of the Amendment was incorrect when he brought up the Pennsylvania Convention Center.  He stated there was a Service Contract that had problems with the managing of that facility, and it has been rectified.  He stated the actual building of that facility came in on Budget using Union work.  He stated he has no problem using superior Union contractors who have proven track records and apprenticeship programs providing superior work versus non-Union shoddy work. 

 

Motion to approve the Amendment did not carry as Mrs. Godshalk and Mr. Stainthorpe were in favor and Mr. Caiola, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Santarsiero were opposed.

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated they have had a very good experience with Mr. Biddle of Building Restorations; and while she is not certain if he is Union or not, he does pay the pay scale and has sub-contractors, and has done an amazing job.  She stated he is a small business person, and she feels they have now cut out people like Mr. Biddle.  Mr. Santarsiero asked the amount of that work, and Mr. Fedorchak stated the entire contract will be about $1.4 million.  Mr. Santarsiero stated for many of the items they have under $75,000 this Ordinance would not apply.  He stated it is not the case that only Unions have apprenticeship programs. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero moved to close debate.  Mr. Smith stated the debate has been closed, and as a courtesy to Mrs. Godshalk, he allowed her to make her comments after the Motion to Amend was defeated. 

 

Mrs. Godshalk moved that they spell out that there are no illegal, undocumented aliens included in this Ordinance. 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 31 of 33

 

 

Mr. Caiola asked who would be insuring that there are none, and Mrs. Godshalk stated the person who this is awarded to would have to do this.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he feels it would be whoever is enforcing the rest of the items in the Ordinance.  Mr. Truelove stated most of that information would be available through the Department of Labor and Industry and whether the principals would have any past prior bad experiences so that information can be obtained on-line.  He stated with regard to illegal, undocumented aliens, he does not know how much farther they can go than what is already in the Ordinance in terms of compliance with Federal law.  He stated the people who have the reporting requirement for that is a Federal agency.  He stated with regard to the apprenticeship program itself, whether it is Union or non-Union,  they have a program to document the people who participate; and they must meet certain standards as well, some of which were referred to by Mr. Rubin.  Mr. Truelove stated he feels there are therefore several different levels of scrutiny that are met already within the Ordinance, and feels as worded it is flexible enough but also tight enough that it would meet all the requirements without the necessity of the proposed Amendment.

 

Mrs. Godshalk stated they must also make sure that every contractor and every sub-contractor has insurance and workmen’s compensation; and if they are undocumented, the employer cannot get workmen’s comp for that individual, and it might come back onto the Township if they are hurt on Township property.

 

Mr. Stainthorpe seconded the Motion to Amend.

 

Mr. Smith stated he feels the Federal law speaks for itself.  He stated he is comfortable with what is in the Ordinance. 

 

Mr. Caiola asked Mr. Truelove if the fact that they refer to Federal standards covers the concerns without an extended prohibition with regard to illegal immigrants. 

Mr. Truelove stated he prefers the more general language in this context because laws change frequently; and if they had to include or enumerate specific laws or specific categories of laws, they may miss one.  His preference as a drafter of the Ordinance, which was modeled after other successful Ordinances, is that this is the preferable way to go as it provides a comprehensive approach but it also flexible.

 

Mr. Rubin stated he is against the Amendment.  He stated he does not feel the Township is a Federal agency, and is not the Immigration/Naturalization Service, or Homeland Security; and it is not the purview of the Board to enforce Federal law.  He stated the Federal law as stated by the Solicitor is that every employer has to prove that a person has a Social Security number and is a documented, permitted resident or a citizen. 

 

Motion to Amend did not carry as Mrs. Godshalk and Mr. Stainthorpe voted in favor and Mr. Caiola, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Santarsiero were opposed.

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 32 of 33

 

 

Mr. Smith called for a vote on the Motion as originally stated. 

 

Mr. Santarsiero stated he would like to note for the record that Mrs. Godshalk and

Mr. Stainthorpe were for this before they were against it.  Mr. Stainthorpe stated he would admit that he has changed his mind and apologized that he did not pick this up previously.  He stated he does not have an anti-Union bias but does believe in free markets and feels they work best and feels more competition is always better.  He feels this is a stealth way to make Lower Makefield a Union Township. 

 

Motion carried with Mr. Caiola, Mr. Santarsiero, and Mr. Smith in favor and

Mrs. Godshalk and Mr. Stainthorpe opposed.

 

 

ZONING HEARING BOARD MATTERS

 

With regard to the Mark Cherepko, 32 Maplevale Drive, Variance request to construct a screened patio resulting in greater than permitted impervious surface, it was agreed to leave this matter to the Zoning Hearing Board.

 

With regard to the Kathleen and Arthur Peake, 751 W. Melissa Circle, Variance request to construct a paver patio resulting in encroachment into the special setback of Edgewood Road, it was agreed to leave this matter to the Zoning Hearing Board.

 

With regard to the Christa Spera, 1381 Colony Way, Variance request to construct an addition resulting in greater than the permitted impervious surface it was recommended that the Solicitor participate in order to get further clarification. 

 

 

SUPERVISORS REPORTS

 

 

Mr. Caiola stated the Economic Development Committee will meet in June and will tour Edgewood Village.  Mr. Caiola thanked Brian McCloskey, Finance Director, for the report submitted which will be very helpful through the year.  Mr. Santarsiero agreed.

 

Mr. Smith noted the first annual Spring Fling will be held on Sunday, May 6 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Elm Lowne.

 

 

MEMORIAL DAY PARADE

 

All Supervisors indicated they plan to attend the Memorial Day Parade.

 

May 2, 2007                                                                Board of Supervisors – page 33 of 33

 

 

APPOINTMENTS

 

Mrs. Godshalk moved, Mr. Caiola seconded and it was unanimously carried to re-appoint Marilyn Huret to the Emergency Management Committee and Karen Friedman to the

Planning Commission. 

 

 

There being no further business, Mr. Stainthorpe moved, Mr. Santarsiero seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meting at 11:35 p.m.

 

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                            Steve Santarsiero, Secretary