Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, November 24 2009
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
PRESENT:
CHARLES M. THOMPSON, JR., CHAIRPERSON}
ROBERT G. MCMONAGLE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON}
KATHY H. HEUER, SECRETARY} BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
H. GEORGE LEONHAUSER}
JASPER CARO}
RAYMOND STEPNOSKI, TOWNSHIP MANAGER
MICHAEL J. SAVONA, ESQ., TOWNSHIP SOLICITOR
1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND ROLL CALL.
Mr. Thompson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. After the pledge of allegiance, Ms. Heuer called roll.All
Supervisors were in attendance.There were also approximately 25 interested citizens in attendance.The Township
Engineer was not in attendance at this meeting.
2.ANNOUNCEMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AWARDS AND REPORTS.
A.NEXT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING - TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009 @ 6:30 P.M.
3.PUBLIC COMMENT.NON-AGENDA ITEMS ONLY.
Jim Lynch, Langhorne expressed his dismay in the recent election in the Township and how the parties have managed to
bring Middletown Township down to the status of what he remembers as being Bristol Township with a lot of issues.Mr.
Lynch said that Mr. Stepnoski is doing a great job and he has gone through the proposed budget.Everyone knew there
was a deficit last year.Mr. Lynch disagrees with the Board granting a waiver for the fee in lieu of sidewalks.Mr.
Lynch also stated that he does not believe it is fair that he has to pay a franchise fee for cable television.
Mr. Lynch also said that the Police Chief versus Public Safety Director is getting tiresome.He has been a Middletown
resident for over 40 years.He inquired why the Township doesn't have part-time policemen at half the rate with no
benefits for 32 hours a week for 6 months out of the year.There are quite a few municipalities in Bucks County that
use probationary police officers that work for half of the money and do not get benefits.
Mr. Lynch said the Board is "cutting the throats" of the Administrative staff and the Department of Public Works
staff while massaging the Police Department for $9 million a year.Mr. Lynch read the definition of "meritocracy" in
relation to Acting Director McGinty and stated that getting a new employee would not be advantageous to the Police
Department.Mr. Lynch stated that everyone has taken a cut in their pensions, not just the police department.He
suggested that the Board get together and work out these problems.
Jim McFadden, President of the Parkland Fire Company and Vice Chairman of the Skyline Fire District Association said
in October a copy of an Apparatus Plan was presented at a Board meeting.A right to know request was submitted and a
letter was returned with the following information:"As previously discussed, the material presented was presented by
Supervisor McMonagle and was presented to me (Mr. Stepnoski) for display immediately prior to the meeting.As such the
document that you request is not a record of the Township and therefore I must deny your request."
At that meeting it was stated that was a Township document.Mr. McFadden inquired if this is or is not a Township
document.
Mr. McMonagle replied that he carried the information in to the meeting on a memory stick and to Mr. Stepnoski's
knowledge it was not generated by the Township; however, he received it from the Finance Director only hours before
by email.Mr. McMonagle said he did not modify it or change any figures on the form.
Mr. McFadden said he called Mr. McMonagle's home and requested a copy of this information and was told that he would
email it to Mr. McFadden if he could find it.Mr. McFadden said to date he has not received it.Mr. McMonagle said he
chose not to email it to Mr. McFadden.Mr. McMonagle said he knew that there was a right to know request submitted to
the Township and that certain individuals would try to use the information as some sort of political weapon.
Mr. McFadden said he does not understand what Mr. McMonagle means by a "political weapon".Mr. McMonagle said there
was a right to know request submitted by Frank Farry on October 28th or 29th after which they
immediately called a reporter at the Courier Times, Ben Finley who did not feel this was an interesting
story.A lengthy discussion was held concerning the difference between the document that was presented by Mr.
McMonagle at the meeting and the document that was provided by the Finance Director.Mr. McFadden once again asked if
what was projected was a Township document.
Mr. Savona responded that Mr. McMonagle obtained a document from the Finance Director thru the Township Manager's
Secretary.Mr. McMonagle put that information on a flash stick and gave it to Mr. Stepnoski who projected the
information at the meeting.Mr. Savona said it seems to him that Mr. Stepnoski did not know the exact source of
information, unknowingly he did have the information and all he had to do was ask the Finance Director.
Mr. McMonagle said that when he learned that a right to know request was filed for the document in question, he chose
not to give it to Mr. McFadden because he knew he would give it to the people that filed the request.In Mr.
McMonagle's opinion this was done to create some kind of political weapon.The Chief of the Parkland Fire Company
stated at the public meeting that Mr. McMonagle doctored the file, when that is not the case.Mr. McMonagle said it
would not have been very bright to project on television a doctored document when the real file is Township
property.Mr. McMonagle further stated that he received the email just hours prior to the meeting.He wrote it to the
flash drive and brought it to the meeting.Mr. Stepnoski did not know that Mr. McMonagle was bringing the flash drive
for the meeting and then after the meeting Mr. McMonagle took it with him.
Mr. McFadden asked if the document in question was voted on by the Board.Mr. McMonagle said the Board does not vote
on documents.Mr. McFadden said when an Apparatus Plan is revised by the Chiefs and is presented to the Township and
is then voted on by the Township Supervisors for approval or non-approval.Mr. McMonagle said that in his eight (8)
years on the Board he does not recall voting on an Apparatus Plan, it is used as a tool for the budgeting process.Mr.
McFadden stated that the August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors minutes list a vote of 5-0 approving a revised Fire
Apparatus Plan for the Skyline Fire District.A lengthy discussion followed at which point Mr. McMonagle asked Mr.
McFadden if he was stating that Mr. McMonagle falsified a document and projected it on the screen at a public
meeting.Mr. McFadden said it seems to him that Mr. McMonagle is the only one that has the document.Mr. McFadden asked
if he could receive this document tomorrow.Mr. McMonagle stated that he would send it this evening.Mr. McFadden asked
if it would be the same thing that the Township has and could Mr. Stepnoski send him a copy of the document.
Mike Schumacher, Towpath Road, Levittown requested an update on the progress of the PennDOT construction on
Bristol-Oxford Valley Road.Mr. Stepnoski advised that the roadway will be open for the winter and will be closed
again in the spring for the installation of the final base coat.
Chris McCarney, 47 Harvest Road, Levittown expressed her concern with the outgoing Board's sudden decision to quickly
vote to change the Public Safety Position and reinstate the Police Chief position.She is also offended by Ms. Heuer's
comment that was reported in the paper regarding her lack of confidence in the incoming Board because she feels they
are lacking in integrity.Ms. McCarney further stated that the recent election told everyone how the general public
feels about the decisions that have been made by the current Board.
Ms. McCarney stated she does not know either of the police officers that are mentioned as candidates for the PSD or
Police Chief position, but she does know the proper procedures for confidentiality with regard to job applications
and the interview process.Job interviews and the discussions contained within are confidential regardless of whether
it is in the public or private sector.
Robert McCarney, 47 Harvest Road, Levittown asked why the intersection improvement at Old Lincoln Highway and Route
213 is taking place now at the peak of the holiday shopping season.He also inquired why something hasn't been done to
work with PennDOT on the synchronization of the traffic signals on Route 1.
Mr. Stepnoski said that the scissors intersection was delayed by PennDOT as the project was fully designed and then
an additional PennDOT review held up the project an additional 6-9 months.The project is proposed to be completed by
the middle of January.
Mr. McCarney said when the road paving was done in this section he believes that the traffic sensors were paved over
at the traffic signal at Woodbourne Road and Harmony Road.Mr. McCarney stated that the light does not change making
it difficult to enter Woodbourne Road.He suggested signage directing motorists to not block the intersection.
Mr. Stepnoski advised that the Township Traffic Engineer looked into this issue in the summer. He also advised that
Woodbourne Road is a PennDOT road.The installation of signage is a good idea but will not solve the problem.
Mr. McCarney advised of a problem with the traffic signal at the former I-95 Marketplace and Veterans' Highway.Mr.
McCarney also expressed his concern about the current Board circumventing any action that the new Board may take with
regard to the PSD position versus the Chief of Police position.To address Ms. Heuer's comments concerning the lack of
confidence in the newly elected supervisors, perhaps she should have run for office.The voters have spoken and they
have no confidence in Ms. Heuer or the Democratic majority of the current Board.
Erin Schumacher, Towpath Road, Levittown asked if one or two traffic lights are proposed for the bottom of
Bristol-Oxford Valley Road.Ms. Schumacher also asked if the Township could get PennDOT to move a little faster on the
project.Mr. Stepnoski advised that he would check the plans and advise Ms. Schumacher of the proposed traffic
lights.He also stated that PennDOT isn't actually doing the project it was bid to K. E. Seifert, but he would check
into the timeline of the project.
Andy Warren, Shady Brook Drive, Langhorne said he has a Political Science Degree with a Bachelor of Arts and wanted
to confirm two things.Agenda Item 8 will be an agenda item where there will be public comment at that time.Mr.
Thompson advised that Agenda Item 8 is no longer under consideration this evening. Mr. Warren advised that PennDOT
and their contractors will not start work on a road before 9 a.m. and will be off of the road by 3 p.m. to
intentionally stay out of rush hour traffic.
Joe Geonnotti, 14 Red Berry Road, Levittown said he is confused by the numbers presented in the proposed 2010
Budget.The number of police officers on the Middletown Township Police force is 54.A lengthy discussion ensued
concerning the number of police officers on duty during the day during a 12 hour shift.
Mr. Leonhauser directed Acting Public Safety Director McGinty to address the manpower numbers for the police
department and how many are out.Director McGinty explained that currently the department has 52 officers; two
officers were lost this past year; 1 was deployed, 1 returned from Iraq and there are three officers out with long
term injuries, which brings the number down to 48 including the full staff.There are 4 squads with 8 and 9 on the
squad and the 4 persons that was mentioned is the minimum that is on all shifts except for Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday where it would be 5 officers and a sergeant on duty.
Mr. Geonnotti compared the police force of Falls Township with Middletown Township and went into great detail asking
why there is a need for an additional 10 police officers as stated in the proposed 2010 budget.
Mr. McMonagle said the addition of 10 police officers may have been information that was stated in campaign
literature that was promised by candidates that are not sitting on the board at the present time.
Mr. Caro asked if there wasn't a report that came out recently stating the Township was undermanned by 8 police
officers.Mr. Stepnoski said there can be recommendations and it depends on what you are going to use for the
criteria.Mr. Caro said that recommendation came out recently.Mr. Stepnoski said there were 54 officers on the books.
Last year the Township sadly lost Officer Chris Jones and Chief McKenna retired, which put the department down by
two.There are two officers that are on the roles but are IOD (injured on duty), and there are two officers that were
in Iraq, one of which has returned and the other is to come back the beginning of 2010.
Mr. Geonnotti asked why the Township does not utilize part-time police officers and stated the savings it would
bring.Mr. Geonnotti also expressed his concern with the fact the Township has 20 officers that are on long-term
disability and these individuals receive 75% of their pays based on the average of their past three year salary.Mr.
Geonnotti also spoke to Falls Township about the number of officers they have on long-term disability and the number
is 12-15 with the same benefits Middletown Officers receive.Mr. Geonnotti asked if the information pertaining to the
number of Middletown Officers on long-term disability is available to the public.
Mr. Leonhauser asked Mr. Geonnotti if he wants the information on those officers who suffered brain aneurisms at a
young age or heart attacks.He said Mr. Geonnotti is making it sound like they just get that way and apply for it and
be done with it.Mr. Leonhauser pointed out that whoever goes out on long-term disability must be approved by their
doctor and the Township's doctor and then are approved by the Board to go out.Mr. Geonnotti asked again if he could
get that list and Mr. Leonhauser said it sounds like he is questioning the officers' credibility.Mr. McMonagle said
he could stop in and get that list.
Mr. Caro asked Mr. Savona if indeed Mr. Geonnotti could get that list.Mr. Savona stated he could get a list of
individuals that are on a Township police disability pension, but what you cannot provide is personal information
relative to Social Security number, address, medical information or anything that relates to the claim.The
individuals can be identified because they do receive Township funds and that is public money.Any more information
than that without further review he is not entitled to.
Mr. Geonnotti said with regard to the issue of a Public Safety Director versus a Chief of Police position, in the
past with the Chief the Township had for a number of years, there were issues brought up.One of the incidents was the
resident that lost a leg in a drug bust that went bad and the Township was attempting to replace the Chief at that
time, but couldn't because of his contract.
Mr. McMonagle stated those two incidents were not related; one was an unfortunate incident and there was a large
payout.The Township switched insurance carriers as a result of that and has realized significantly reduced rates.
There was no action by the Board to remove a police chief because there is a state law called the Police Tenure Act
of 1949 that basically forbids an elected body from removing a police chief or office unless they have committed an
infamous crime. Mr. McMonagle stated that he and Mr. Caro were the only members of the present board that were on the
board at that time and they do not recall any incident.Mr. Caro said as a matter of fact the Chief of Police was with
the Township for 50 years and he would take another 50 years.
Mr. Geonnotti said he has gotten the opinion from people he has spoken to over the past several weeks that when you
have a chief of police the Township Manager does not have the knowledge he needs to see what is going on.The chief of
police has his department and it is separate with their own way of running things and limits the Township Manager.
Mr. McMonagle said he cannot speak to the communication process between the Township and the police
administration.Mr. Stepnoski said there is no difference and he met with the Chief routinely and he meets with
Director McGinty routinely.
Michael Russo, 14 year veteran of the Middletown Township Police Department expressed his concern with the lack of
respect of the Middletown Police Department from certain members of the Board.Mr. Russo went into great detail about
issues relating to the tragic loss of Officer Christopher Jones on January 29, 2009.Additional information concerning
grievances and posting of information on various websites was also mentioned by Officer Russo.Mr. Russo read the
following into record: "To repeat what we said during the campaign, 90% of the members of the Middletown Police
Department are honest, hard working men and women of the highest integrity.A credit to the uniform and a source of
pride to our Township, we salute you.But as in any large organization there is always a small group that will resist
any form of progress or management by disrupting operations, abusing authority and fighting to maintain an impossible
status quo.The rest of the force is embarrassed by them and many have said so but would never do so publicly.We know
that addressing concerns about public safety will be a priority of our new Board of Supervisors for the good of the
Township. We hope they will address these concerns in conjunction with doing something about the arrogance displayed
by and entitlement demanded by the small group within the Police Department. We cannot address public safety without
addressing the corruption that exists in and disruption that is caused by a small segment of our Police
Department."
Mr. Russo is present on behalf of the men and women of the Middletown Police Department and asked Mr. Thompson to
publicly name the so-called corrupt cops and level his charges.If not and if the attacks continue, it will force
their hands and they will go to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and file a complaint in Mr. Thompson's name.
Mr. Russo said that some day there may be a 911 call that comes from Mr. Thompson's house, be it a fire, medical
emergency or criminal act and do you know what will happen that day, the police will be there and safeguard his items
and protect his life and will catch the bad guys, because that is the integrity and the character of the men and
women he represents as a member of the PBA.The members of the Middletown Police Department conduct themselves with
the highest standard of honor, dignity and professionalism and ask the same of the elected officials and Mr. Thompson
and Ms. Heuer.So everyone doesn't think that it is just the Police department that Mr. Thompson likes to pick on; on
his blog dated March 29, 2009, he wrote that he and his wife attended a 98th annual banquet of the Penndel
Fire Company.He wrote "I am continually amazed at the dedication of the men and women volunteers who put themselves
in harm's way to keep the Township residents safe."That was several months before the infamous political mailer that
came out that belittled the purchase of life-saving equipment as parade floats.Mr. Russo said Mr. Thompson owes the
men and women of the Department an apology.
Bob Burnett, Police Officer and also a resident of Middletown Township is present this evening to find out if he is
part of the 10% that Mr. Thompson referred to; but wanted to state that he appreciated the fact that Mr. Thompson
shook his hand the other day at a hearing.Mr. Burnett said there are many untruths to come out at the Board of
Supervisors' meetings and the worst thing that Mr. McMonagle has done since being a member of the Board is to decide
to televise the Board meetings.
Mr. Burnett went into great detail about statements that were made by Mr. McMonagle during the past campaign. Mr.
McMonagle stated that Mr. Burnett is doing the same thing that Mr. Russo did and that is assigning remarks and
interrupting issues to support his side.Quite frankly approaching the microphone like both officers have is a
violation of the police officers code of conduct.When you talk about integrity and respect, Mr. McMonagle doesn't
really see that.
Mr. Burnett said in his 22 year career in Middletown Township he has had a rotator cuff surgery, ankle surgery and
has undergone back surgery twice in the last year because he loves his job and wants to get back to work.Mr.
McMonagle said that is commendable.Mr. Burnett asked Mr. McMonagle why he keeps interrupting him.He said it is
because he has a point to make and Mr. McMonagle doesn't want it to be heard.
Mr. Burnett and Mr. McMonagle argued back and forth concerning which side they represent.Mr. McMonagle said Mr.
Burnett represents a single special interest group.Mr. McMonagle said he doesn't need to argue with Mr. Burnett
because he has an axe to grind.
Mr. Burnett told Mr. Thompson that it is a shame that he aligned himself with the person sitting to his left and
believes that he would have been an asset to the Board had he been elected.
Mr. Thompson thanked Mr. Burnett.
Harry Arnold, 1007 West Maple Avenue, Langhorne said that veterans of the Township are eligible for property tax
exemption and there are approximately 14 veterans in the Township.The issue is the portion of the municipal tax bill
that is a fee for trash collection.So when the veteran no longer receives a tax bill they receive a separate bill for
the trash collection.Mr. Arnold asked that the Board consider enacting an ordinance that would be in conjunction with
the state exemption the veterans receive from the Office of Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. Savona said that since this is a fee where the Township pays the trash collector and then assesses each
individual household a fee to offset the costs so that it becomes a pass through there isn't a need for an
amendment.The Board could waive those fees on a case by case basis once the Tax Collector sends the information to
the board advising of those residents that have been granted an exemption of paying taxes.
Mr. Stepnoski asked Mr. Savona if the Board could pass the general fee waiver for those residents (veterans) that do
not receive tax bills.Mr. Savona said a resolution could be put together delegating that authority to the Township
Manager upon proper verification to grant an administrative waiver.
Lisa Pflaumer, Maple Point, Middletown Township said with regard to what Mr. Arnold just mentioned, being a military
family and valuing the disabled veterans and all veterans alike, she would like to have public comment on this issue
before the Board decides to waive fees because the fees will be borne by other residents in the Township.
Ms. Pflaumer said with regard to the Chief of Police position versus the Public Safety Director position, whichever
way the Board decides to guy, in her opinion Mr. McGinty is a very qualified candidate for either Police Chief or
Public Safety Director.The interaction she has had with Mr. McGinty as well as Mr. Kane throughout her tenure as a
member of the Board of Supervisors has always been complimentary to the purposes that they pursue as members of the
police force.It is not an easy task that the Board has before them, but she also believes that just because they are
the outgoing board does not mean that you should not pursue the actions that you have been given and are required to
pursue as members of the Board of Supervisors.There is no such thing in her opinion as a "lame duck" board.They were
still elected or appointed regardless of what the position is and the fact remains that they have a sworn duty to the
citizens of the Township to pursue all actions on behalf of the community.
Mr. Thompson said he could not agree with her more and the reason that agenda Item #8 was removed is that there was a
complaint filed in civil action and the board was enjoined from taking any action on this issue.The petitioners in
the case were Andrew Kreiling and Patrick Mallon and they appeared before the judge today and this is the reason this
is not being pursued.
Patrick Kitchenman, 68 Forsythia Drive East, said with regard to the Public Safety Director issue, any action taken
on the Board's part to appoint someone as a police chief would indeed be a "slap in the face" to the voters.He asked
the current Board to hold off and let the new board come in because that is what the voters have wanted.He also told
Ms. Heuer her comment concerning the integrity of the incoming board who was actually elected to the positions is a
"slap in the face" as she was appointed to her position.
4.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.
A.CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF BILL LISTS #10-9 DATED OCTOBER 31, 2009, #11-3 DATED NOVEMBER 11, 2009,
#11-4 DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2009, #11-5 DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2009 AND #11-6 AND ADDENDUM DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2009.
B.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE OCTOBER 27, 2009 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
C.CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE SOLID WASTE REMOVAL CONTRACT.
ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. CARO TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A THRU
C AS LISTED ABOVE.
Mr. Stepnoski advised that there is a three-year and a five-year timeframe set for the solid waste removal
contract.There is only one option and that is the option of whether or not the Township retains ownership of the
recyclables which would allow the Township to go to an outside firm as has been done in the past joining with the
County to get a rebate from the sale of recyclables.The other highlights of the bids that was put out is the
year-round weekly yard waste removal, once a week recyclables, two day pick up and the Monday holiday rider has been
included which means pickup the next day if there is a Monday holiday.
There were three interested parties Republic/Allied, interested but never submitted a bid; Waste Management and
Mascara were the two bids that were opened.Waste Management's bid came in at $4.3 million and if the Board were to
award this contract for the first three years there would be no increase in the trash component of the bills and
would stay at $364.00.There may be a smaller increase next year.There may be a 20% bump in 2013 and 2014 with Waste
Management and Mascara is $1 million higher for each of those years.
Mr. Stepnoski recommended the Board accept a five year contract with Waste Management invoking Option 1 where the
Township retains ownership of the recyclables and possibly the first meeting in December the Board would have the
option to sign up again with the County and continue recyclables with Otter.
Tom Gallagher, Sycamore Ridge, asked what is in the consent agenda, the three or the five year option.
Mr. Stepnoski said the consent agenda is to hold the five year with option 1 where the Township retains ownership of
the recyclables.The base price for the bid is 12,117 and is adjusted on an annual basis.Ms. Heuer said initially
Waste Management said they were going to charge additional for picking up trash on the day after a holiday.Mr.
Stepnoski said that has been written into the contract.Mr. Savona advised the difference is when it was put out for
bid before, it was for one year and it wasn't provided for in the specs.So when the bidders go out and price this it
is priced based on the schedule and manpower and all of the things that go into factoring out what it going to cost
them.When the Township hit them after the fact that we wanted the extra day, they had to cost that separately which
was approximately $15,000.00 per day each day there was an additional collection day.These specifications were
included as part of the initial upfront bid package so that any bidder knew that had to be included in their overall
pricing.It may have increased it slightly, but would not be as significant as was shown on an individual day basis.As
the contract is written now residents may expect the day after a holiday pickup.
Mr. McMonagle said that based on the 2010 fee and the number of primary residences to exempt 14 individuals being
disabled veterans for 2010 would net out to 41.6 cents per household per year.
Mr. Caro inquired why the Township doesn't go with the three year contract as the fee would go up in the fourth year
of the five year contract.Mr. Stepnoski advised that there is value in providing three or five years of business.
Chuck Raudenbush of Waste Management advised that there would be a percent and a half increase over this year's rate
to next year.
Mr. Savona further explained that there is a flat cost in the first three years of the contract what the Township
would be betting against is in the 4th and 5th year, what the incremental increase would be if
you waited until that year to go out to bid or if you take what you know to be a quantifiable increase over the
amount.Mr. Caro said that the trend is that the price went down.Mr. Savona said that is more related to the fact the
Board asked for a bid on a one year basis which is more expensive and is not truly reflective of what the market is.
Mr. Raudenbush further stated that Waste Management has been servicing Middletown Township for the past 22 years and
are proud to work in the Township.Waste Management picks up 60,000 stops a week which includes yard waste and trash
and recycling.
Mr. McMonagle asked what is done with the leaf and yard waste that is collected.Mr. Raudenbush said there is a
facility at the Tullytown landfill that composts leaf and yard waste that turns it into mulch similar to what you
would purchase at Home Depot.Residents from Falls and Tullytown may come and pick up the mulch at the site.Mr.
Raudenbush also stated that Middletown Township has received mulch from this site in the past.
Ms. Heuer advised that she has seen the yard waste picked up with the trash and put in the same truck.Mr. Raudenbush
stated that should not happen.
Tim Andorn, District Manager for Waste Management clarified that this time of year there is an extreme volume on the
yard waste.What is done after the regular trash is picked up a truck is sent out preliminarily to get a jump on the
yard waste.
MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
At this point Mr. Thompson moved to Item #6.
5.CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE 2010 PROPOSED TOWNSHIP BUDGET.
Mr. Stepnoski made a presentation of the 2010 Proposed Budget for the Board's consideration.The Township Manager and
Township Finance Director have been spending very long hours the past couple of weeks to get the latest figures for
revenue.Revenues are down by $1 million with half of that figure being the real estate transfer tax.Expenses are on
target, but last year the Township budgeted to spend down the Fund Balance by $1 million which means a $2 million
decrease over the previous year which would equate to approximately 4 mills with 1 mill bringing in $520,000.00.
A reallocation of some of the revenue streams were shifted to where taxes are and the results are forthcoming.The
deficit in the revenues was replaced with two important things; one is a $1 million transfer from the Contingency
Fund.The Contingency Fund has leant money to other funds with $1.5 million in assets in this fund.There was an
$800,000.00 transfer from the Investment Fund, which used to go into the Debt Service which has been restructured to
have a millage increase because the Debt Service for bonds which are being paid back based on public projects.The
Debt Service has no cap on its millage, whereas the General Fund has a 14 mill cap and is already at 7 mills.
Mr. Caro asked where the 19 mill cap comes in.Mr. Savona explained that the General Fund millage is capped at 14
mills.If the Township demonstrates an economic hardship, the Court of Common Pleas may be petitioned to approve an
increase above the 14 mills, but that increase is capped at an additional 5 mills.
There are several things that are keeping the General Fund expenses on the high side including insurance quotes of 12
to 25 percent increase.There is a major change in the experience factor in Workers' Compensation and is expected to
go up by about 25 percent.Contract salaries range from 3.75 to 4.5 percent and the Township is obligated to provide
for the increase.
Mr. Stepnoski said after working through the budget he was able to keep the increase down to 4 percent.He can't find
any place else to cut.He is looking at attrition and not filling positions and reallocating work.The General Fund
expense last year was $13.1 million and $13.6 million is proposed for this year which is a 4 percent increase.
Mr. Leonhauser questioned about the uninsured and underinsured figure on the policies and is it going to remain at
the $35,000.00 or bumped back to the $1 million figure.Mr. Stepnoski replied that it is at the state mandated level
of $35,000.00.Mr. Leonhauser stated the figure should be $1 million due to the dangerous type of work the Police
Department does.
Mr. Savona said the Township's main limits on the policy already meet the number and if there is liability assessed
against the township whether it is police liability or errors and omissions, there is a million dollar limit on the
policy.The portion that Mr. Leonhauser is speaking of is the uninsured and underinsured motorist portion of the
township's automobile insurance policy which would apply in the event that someone is operating any township vehicle,
not just police vehicles, they are involved in an automobile accident where they are not at fault and where the
opposing driver has too little insurance or no insurance at all.
Mr. Leonhauser still believes that for the money that is being saved, it is not worth it and the Township should have
the $1 million of protection.Mr. Stepnoski will call the insurance carrier and get a figure for this additional
coverage.
Mr. McMonagle asked if there is any implication with regard to the Board changing the coverage or budgeting different
coverage while this issue is under grievance by the Police Union.Mr. Savona said everything he knows about the
grievance relates to past conduct.Mr. Savona pointed out historically the coverage was $35,000.00 and the former
manager, Rich Gestrich changed the coverage to $1 million for one year and then Mr. Stepnoski changed it back to the
$35,000.00.If the Board wants to maintain consistency with what has been done over the past 15 to 20 years, they
should keep the level at $35,000.00.
Mr. Stepnoski moved on with his presentation stating that in the General Fund expenses, 68% are police in an amount
of $9.1 million, Administration which covers the Board of Supervisors, Finance and the entire administration
department is 10%, DPW is 7%, Licenses & inspections and the fire marshal's offices are 3%.
Mr. Caro asked if there is any type of requirement that limits the amount of funds that are being used from the
Contingency Fund and is there any sort of reserve account that must have a certain amount.Mr. Stepnoski said no and
most of the funds are pass-thru funds. The fund balance for the General Fund is lower than it should be and he is
looking at the Contingency fund as one area that funds could be used from because tax revenues don't come in until
the end of the first quarter.If the Township had to they could borrow from Capital Projects which has $2.7 million in
the fund, but that would have to be paid back.
Mr. Stepnoski advised that the Debt Service Fund is that fund which is pass through and where all of the bonds are
paid.All of the bonds are in the Debt Service Fund and there are schedules that must be paid out.The Township did do
a refinance and the money saved was built into the refinancing and is lowering the payments.The Township did do a
revenue swap.Last year $800,000.00 from the Investment fund was used to pay bonds.This year $822,000.00 has been
moved to the General fund and now a small increase in property taxes will go to Debt Service only.
There are several minor fund changes; i.e., street lighting will be increased .1 mills due to increases in electric
rates; and fire hydrants has an increase in the service cost that must be paid to Bucks County Water & Sewer and
Lower Bucks Joint Municipal Authority in the amount of .01 mills.
Fire Fund is at 1.375 mills with a certain percentage of those funds that are collected distributed into each of the
fire companies with the remainder gets netted out and goes into the Apparatus Fund.Rescue fund is .395 mills.Park
& Recreation has $1.3 million budgeted and an extra $100,000.00 that they are short will come from the Fund
Balance.Park & Recreation did absorb 1.5 employees with one of the DPW employees working mainly for the Park
& Recreation Department and Rita Wilson filling in a half day with Terry Field leaving.
Some of the Capital Projects from the Capital Reserve Fund that were not completed last year are the Twin Oaks Master
Plan, and Veterans' Park along with several other Park & Recreation projects including tree plantings.
The Police Department will be submitting a grant for bullet proof vest replacements which would cost approximately
$40,000.00.It was thought that a rough surface on the firing range floor would be a good idea, but the range floor
has to be cleaned on a regular basis with a squeegee and it does not come clean.There also are cracks in the floor
which accumulate gun powder and that is not good because too much of a build up could cause a fire.There is
$10,000.00 in the budget for this work which needs to be done to continue the usefulness of the firing range.
There is a list of roads to be completed and the resurfacing of the roads behind the William Penn Fire house is
proposed as they were missed when the Levittown roads were repaved.
Mr. Stepnoski said if the Board raises taxes 1 mill it would bring in roughly $500,000.00 and to the average property
owner it would be approximately $30.00.The recommended increase is a 1.73 mill at a cost of about $50.00 with no
change in the trash fee from last year which was $364.00.
With regard to anything else that the Board may want to do, it would result in an increase in taxes above the
approximately $50.00 increase as stated above.In the Police Department, a secretary is going to retire and she will
not be replaced with her work being disbursed among the other employees.Mr. McMonagle would like to see that position
filled and not phased out.Mr. Stepnoski said one of the things that is continually done is evaluating what is
actually needed and when someone retires or leaves it gives an opportunity to see what is needed.One of the things
that department does need is help at the front desk.
Mr. Caro asked how many mills per police officer it would cost.Mr. Penko stated that it would cost roughly
$100,000.00 to add a new police officer or .2 mills.Mr. Stepnoski is cognizant of the fact that the Township be
sufficiently staffed.He took the current roster and broke out patrolmen, detectives, sergeants, administrators and a
couple "house men".When actually take the number of hours worked just by patrolmen and divide by the number of hours
from January 1st at midnight through the end of the November payroll, that average is 6.5 officers per
hour.On average, just with straight time, there should be 6.5 officers on duty as corresponds with the number of
hours paid out.
A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the effect of two returning officers along with 12 hour shifts versus 8 hour
shifts and the cost effectiveness between the two.Mr. Caro inquired if the 12 hour shift is in the PBA Contract.Mr.
Stepnoski said if was first tried and then the 12 hour shift was moved into the contract.
Mr. McMonagle said several speakers this evening spoke of part-time officers and he believes that is something the
Township should look into.Mr. Stepnoski said there are mixed blessings with part time officers, i.e., they are not
part of the Township and do not become part of the force.
Mr. Leonhauser said the part-time officer would still be part of the union.
Mr. Savona said with regard to the issue of whether they are or are not part of the union, if the contract currently
doesn't provide for part-time officers and if that is introduced, it would have to be discussed with the union and
provisions made in the contract.Mr. Savona recommended sitting down with the union and discussing the cost benefits
of adding part time officers prior to the introduction of part time officers.
Mr. Leonhauser suggested that the Township take advantage of the casino grants.Everyone else is getting a lot of
money out of this with Hulmeville getting $2 million.Mr. Stepnoski said last year in addition to applying for the
intersection improvement at Old Lincoln Highway and Route 213, we also put in to replace MDT's and that was rejected.
Lengthy discussion was held about grants and the fact that they are not a recurring fund source.In many cases the
grants are very narrow in scope and certainly is not something that the Township should budget or count on as a
revenue source.
Mr. Caro asked for an update on the codification of the Township ordinances.Mr. Stepnoski said Ms. Berkis is in the
middle of the process of putting it on the website.The graphics that were originally submitted by General Code have
been redone by Mr. Stepnoski.General Code wanted an obscene amount of money to continue and since the Township had
the word file they are being put on the web in PDF form.
ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MS. HEUER TO AUTHORIZE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE 2010 PROPOSED BUDGET.
Mr. Thompson opened this issue up to public comment.
Tom Gallagher, Sycamore Ridge, asked Mr. Stepnoski if the evaluations on the real estate tax assessments that have
changed been taken into account with what the millage requirements are at this point.Mr. Stepnoski said yes.With
regard to the comments on grants, he tends to agree that in depressed economies, grants go down and in boom times,
the grants go up, but the casino grants are legislated as a percentage of the revenue and the fact that as a Township
we only applied for one grant, is strange to say the least.Hulmeville received $674,000.00, Lower Southampton
received $700,000.00, Bristol received $1 million, and Bensalem received another $120,000.00 on top of the percentage
they receive.There were capital project numbers in the budget and those are the type of things, i.e. the bullet proof
vests that should have been applied for.
Mr. Savona explained the way the state statute is set up, the money that comes off as gross revenue that is allocated
to the County, is 2%.Bensalem receives $10 million as a host municipality every year.Bensalem will actually be giving
back money to their homeowners in the form of a $300.00 rebate.The other 2% gets allocated to the County and what the
County does with that 2% is to keep 1% for themselves and 1% or the $2.6 million that was allocated this year by the
RDA to the municipalities that are contiguous to Bensalem.There are strings attached to the funds in the statute and
in order to be eligible for project funding you have to be able to show that the casino impacts somehow what the
Township is asking to be funded.Capital projects generally are not eligible for funding under that grant.
Mr. Savona also explained that from year to year the RDA has shifted focus in terms of where they are willing to give
grants. The first year around, they gave a significant amount of money to emergency service providers.In the second
year, they turned down most of those types of applications because they don't want it to be viewed as an entitlement
trough for just one particular group of individuals or just one particular interest group.
Mr. Gallagher said he understands, but his point is that the Township wouldn't know because they only applied for one
grant.If the Township had applied for 10 and were turned down for 9, he wouldn't be before the Board at this time.
Mr. McMonagle pointed out that these funds cannot be used for staffing or personnel because you cannot apply grants
and hope they will sustain personnel over a longer period.A bigger question is that someone should ask the County
Commissioners, why they are keeping 1% of the casino funds.What is the impact to Bucks County that they get half of
the proceeds after Bensalem's cut?Mr. McMonagle advised that Bucks County receives a huge grant from Waste Management
and they don't have a single resident that they manage trash collection for.
MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
Mr. Thompson returned to Item #7.
6.CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT WAIVER REQUEST BY SEPTA FOR THE LANGHORNE TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. Stepnoski said SEPTA is planning modifications to the Langhorne Train Station which would be very welcome and
long overdue including handicap accessibility, adding restrooms, and improving the exterior of the building.This work
is being done with use of the stimulus monies so there are constraints.The applicant is requesting, and the Zoning
Officer supports, is a waiver of the land development requirements.The building is currently 1,000 square feet and
the improvement will increase the square footage to 1,300.
Robert Lund, Director of Capital Construction with SEPTA advised that once the construction begins the project is
scheduled for 1 year.A temporary ticket office will be provided during construction and there will not be any
interruption with traffic.Mr. Lund provided the Township with a rendering of the proposed building.
Mr. Stepnoski advised that there isn't anything with the proposed project that couldn't be handled with a permit and
grading permit.
ACTION:MS. HEUER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. CARO TO GRANT SEPTA LAND DEVELOPMENT WAIVER FOR THE LANGHORNE TRAIN
STATION IMPROVEMENTS.MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
Mr. Stepnoski asked Mr. Lund if there is anything that could be done about handicap accessibility at the Woodbourne
Train Station.Mr. Lund said there are ongoing discussions being held with CSX.
AT THIS POINT MR. THOMPSON RETURNED TO ITEM #5.
7.CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FROM K & S GREENDAY, PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT, TMP #22-057-026-001, IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) ZONING DISTRICT, 1060 BIG OAK ROAD, S/LD #08-02
UNTIL DECEMBER 8, 2009.(REVIEW PERIOD EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2009)
Mr. Stepnoski advised that due to the extreme circumstances of both of the Township professionals, he spoke to Mr.
Hecker and he has agreed to an extension until the end of the year.
ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. CARO TO ACCEPT THE EXTENSION FROM K & S GREENDAY,
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, TMP #22-057-026-001, IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) ZONING DISTRICT,
1060 BIG OAK ROAD, S/LD #08-02 UNTIL DECEMBER 8, 2009.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #09-04 REPEALING ORDINANCE #08-06 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP; PROVIDING FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF
POLICE.(PROOF OF PUBLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.)
Mr. Thompson once again stated that Item #8 has been removed from the Agenda.
9.OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Caro asked for an update on the purchase of an overhead projector.Mr. Stepnoski advised that Ms. Berkis is
looking into the pricing.
Ms. Heuer advised that the Bucks County Redevelopment Authority has granted the Township's request for $200,000.00
for sidewalk development and improvement between the Woodbourne Train Station and the Oxford Valley Mall.
ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MS. HEUER TO DIRECT THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER TO WAIVE THE ANNUAL REFUSE
COLLECTION FEES TO DISABLED VETERANS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THEIR EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS
BEGINNING JANUARY 2010.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Stepnoski wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
Mr. Thompson announced that the Township's Holiday Open House will be held on Wednesday, December 9th from
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. sponsored by the Park & Recreation Board.
Mr. Thompson would like to clarify a statement that Mr. Leonhauser was quoted in today's paper that he only had to
abstain on things that had to do with his two sons and son-in-law.As stated in the March 20, 2008 Pennsylvania Ethics
Commission ruling by the General Counsel, Mr. Leonhauser's son-in-law doesn't affect his conflict of interest status,
but his two sons do.The information in the ruling stated that Mr. Leonhauser would have to abstain from all voting in
the police department.Mr. Thompson read the following quote from the ruling:"The abstention requirement would not be
limited to voting, but rather, would extend to any use of authority of office, such as discussing, conferring with
others, or lobbying for a particular result."Mr. Thompson realizes that Mr. Leonhauser has not been adhering to that
finding, but hopes that he will begin to do so.
Mr. Leonhauser responded to Mr. Thompson's statement by saying his interpretation of that is a little bit
different.He understands it to mean that he may vote on any issue where his sons are involved in a larger group and
are not being discussed for a promotion or disciplinary action.Mr. Leonhauser said he asked Mr. Savona to contact the
State Ethics Commission for an appeal and he didn't do it.He believes that if more information were sent to the
Ethics Commission there would have been a different outcome.
Mr. Savona advised that this was not a ruling from the Ethics Commission but a request for an advisory
opinion.Contrary to what Mr. Leonhauser believes, the Ethics Commission is not obliged to issue a follow up to the
advisory opinion.At the time that the letter was written to the Ethics Commission, the Township was dealing with the
ratification of the Police Contract and that was the information that was submitted in the request.
Mr. McMonagle advised that a comedy troupe of Middletown residents and residents from the surrounding area will be
performing Women with Class on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 8:00 p.m. in the Public Hall of the Municipal
Center.There is an $8.00 donation and he invited all to attend.
10.ADJOURNMENT.
ACTION:MR. CARO MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MCMONAGLE TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 24, 2009 PUBLIC MEETING OF THE
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT 9:41 P.M.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
| 
