Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, January 19 2010

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 19, 2010

PRESENT

THOMAS GALLAGHER, CHAIRPERSON}

PAT MALLON, VICE CHAIRPERSON}

H. GEORGE LEONHAUSER, SECRETARY} BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

DREW KREILING}

ROBERT G. MCMONAGLE}

RAYMOND STEPNOSKI, TOWNSHIP MANAGER

JOSEPH PIZZO, ESQ., TOWNSHIP SOLICITOR

PATRICK DUFFY, P.E., TOWNSHIP ENGINEER

1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND ROLL CALL.

Mr. Gallagher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.A moment of silence was held in honor of Detective Christopher Jones who died in the line of duty on January 29, 2009.After the pledge of allegiance Mr. Leonhauser called roll.All supervisors were in attendance along with approximately 20 interested citizens.

2.ANNOUNCEMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AWARDS AND REPORTS.

A.NEXT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING -MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010 @7:30 P.M.

3.PUBLIC COMMENT.NON-AGENDA ITEMS ONLY. (MAXIMUM 30 MINUTES)

Joe Geonnotti, 14 Red Berry Road, Levittown, asked who to call concerning trees blocking street lights within the Township.He also asked if the Township has looked into using halogen bulbs for street lighting and the actual dome of the lights.

Mr. Stepnoski advised Mr. Geonnotti to call DPW to report tree branches covering street lights.The Township is looking into LED lighting and will be submitting grants in an effort to pay for the lighting as it will be very costly to replace the street lights in Levittown.With regard to the dome on the lights, Levittown lights are unique and there isn't a suitable retrofit so they must be replaced and will be replaced using newly designed domes on the lights.

Mr. Geonnotti expressed the ineffectiveness of the "Slow Down" signs that seem to be all through the Township.Mr. Geonnotti asked what is going on at the Senior Citizen Center on Trenton Road.Mr. Stepnoski advised that the floor in the Cafeteria area has been redone and some of the bathrooms have been updated.HVAC is proposed along with energy saving devices to be installed in some of the bathrooms. Mr. Geonnotti also suggested that walls be removed in the Senior Citizen Center alleviating the many small rooms.

Mr. Geonnotti said his main reason to be before the Board is his concern with the recent break-ins in the Township.He believes that the Police Department or someone from the Township should have let him and his neighbors know what was going on.

Mr. Geonnotti asked for information concerning the police officers that are out on disability through the right to know act.He has received a letter from Mr. Stepnoski in response and would still like to know how long the officer was on the police force and when they went out on disability.

There was no other public comment at this time.

4.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.

A.CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF BILL LISTS #12-7 DATED DECEMBER 31, 2009, #1-2 DATED JANUARY 4, 2010, #1-3 DATED JANUARY 5, 2010, #1-4 DATED JANUARY 6, 2010, #1-5 DATED JANUARY 13, 2010 AND #1-6 DATED JANUARY 19, 2010.

B.CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FROM THE COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH. PRELIMINARY LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED AT 2100 DURHAM ROAD, IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, TMP #22-059-001 TO MARCH 2, 2010.

C.CONSIDERATION OF RE-APPROVING THE FINK FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, TMP #22-23-44, S/LD #06-28, APPROVED OCTOBER 9, 2007.

D.CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAN REVIEW FOR WILLIAM KANE LAND DEVELOPMENT, JKJD, LLC, TMP #22-063-001 UNTIL MAY 4, 2010.

ACTION:MR. LEONHAUSER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLON TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A-DAS LISTED ABOVE.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5.CONSIDERATION OF K & S GREENDAY PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SITUATE AT 1060 ROBERT SUGARMAN BOULEVARD (FORMERLY BIG OAK ROAD), IN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT, S/LD #08-02.(REVIEW PERIOD EXPIRES MARCH 1, 2010.)

Mr. Gallagher advised that this item was removed at the request of the applicant.

6.CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING MERCADIEN, P.C. AS AUDITOR FOR THE TOWNSHIP IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000 OR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE RFP FOR AUDITING SERVICES.

Mr. Gallagher advised that this item was removed at the request of the Township Manager.

7.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PENNDOT USE OF TOWNSHIP RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ITS PROJECT ALONG ROUTE 1 BYPASS FROM THE QUARRY TO THE ROUTE 213 INTERCHANGE.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that PennDOT has stimulus money available and are installing an ITS system along the Route 1 Bypass and along I-95.This would involve a number of poles that will look at traffic counts and traffic volume both north and south bound and in addition will have traffic monitoring cameras that are remotely controlled.The proposed ITS system requires the use of conduit to connect all of the individual components and PennDOT is looking to use the Township's right of way in the access roadway along Route 1.

ACTION:MR. MALLON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. KREILING TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PENNDOT USE OF TOWNSHIP RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ITS PROJECT ALONG ROUTE 1 BYPASS FROM THE QUARRY TO THE ROUTE 213 INTERCHANGE.

Mr. Mallon suggested getting the Township Traffic Engineer involved in this project to see what potential things the Township might look at in reciprocation for the use of the Township's right of way.

Mr. Stepnoski said the Township has to pave the access roads and may be able to get some paving done and other signage.The entire Route 1 corridor has come up during the Bucks County TMA meetings on the Safe 1 corridor and one of the thoughts that Mr. Stepnoski had with regard to the concrete medians is to depress the curb on the highway side to allow for pull off for both police and distressed vehicles.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

8.RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

ACTION:MR. GALLAGHER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLONTO REAPPOINT LEONA GUTHERMAN, ROBERT SHANBERG, AND LOU TULLIO, JR. FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 2012.

Mr. Leonhauser inquired about the three other DPAB members and whether they had been reappointed for a two year term last year.

Mr. Pizzo suggested the Township Manager look into whether Mirca Liberti, Sharon Quay and Mary Sly were reappointed last year prior to the Board making a motion to reappoint at this time.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ACTION:MR. KREILING MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. LEONHAUSER TO APPOINT ROBERT BUTTS TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 2014.

Mr. McMonagle asked if there is an application or resume available for this applicant.Mr. McMonagle asked if anyone knows what Mr. Butts' qualifications are.Mr. Kreiling stated that Mr. Butts is a CPA and he knows him personally.

Mr. Stepnoski stated he has not seen anything on this but Mr. Butts has inquired about the position and was told to submit an application.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ACTION:MR. GALLAGHER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLONTO REAPPOINT MARY SCHWEIKER AND KRISTINE PIAZZA-BELSER TO THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JANUARY 2013 AND DORIS BOWER TO A ONE-YEAR VACANCY ON THE PARK & RECREATION BOARD TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 2011.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Gallagher said there is one position on the Cable & Telecommunication Board, three positions on the Community Beautification Committee and two positions on the Environmental Advisory Council.Any resident that may be interested in these positions may apply by going to the Township's website and downloading an application that may be dropped off or mailed to the Township Manager's office for consideration.

9.OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

There was no other public comment at this time.

10.OTHER BUSINESS.

Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Gallagher for the information on the contracts or terms for the appointments that were made at the January 4, 2010 reorganization meeting.Mr. Stepnoski said he has a few that have come in and he would forward them to Mr. McMonagle.Mr. McMonagle requested the information be shared at this point.Mr. Stepnoski said that Tri-State Engineers has submitted a fee schedule and he has received a note from Carroll Engineering and he believes there was a fee scheduled included and he has not yet received anything from Mr. Pizzo's office.

Mr. Pizzo said he has received the information verbally and he believes that he is being appointed under the same representation agreement as the Township's prior solicitor.He is awaiting that description of services, but obviously other than his non-retainer hourly rate at $120.00 per hour where the previous solicitor was at $125.00 per hour, the remainder of t he agreement will remain the same.

Mr. McMonagle asked if any of the terms were negotiated with the professionals prior to the appointments.Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Kreiling if he was aware of the fees prior to the motions he made at the January 4, 2010 meeting.Mr. Kreiling said he had a breakdown of the fees.Mr. McMonagle said it seems that Mr. Pizzo is still waiting to find out what his breakdown is.Mr. Kreiling said he had a verbal breakdown and Mr. Pizzo was to come up with a written amount.

Mr. Mallon requested that Mr. Stepnoski provide all of the Board members with a list of the breakdown of all of the bill rates for all of the professionals that were appointed.Mr. Gallagher stated that the Conflict Attorney will be charging $120.00 per hour as he received a copy of what was sent to Mr. Stepnoski.

Mr. Leonhauser said with regard to a discussion he had with Mr. Stepnoski concerning insurance on uninsured and under-insured had been increased from $35,000.00 to $1 million.Apparently it is still at $35,000.00 and Mr. Leonhauser would like to motion to increase it to $1 million coverage.Mr. Gallagher asked if that would be for all employees of the Township.Mr. Stepnoski said that is correct as the policy doesn't discriminate.

ACTION:MR. LEONHAUSER MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR UNINSURED AND UNDER-INSURED TO $1 MILLION.

Mr. McMonagle inquired what the fee would be because the residents need to know how their tax money is being spent.

Mr. Gallagher asked for a second.Mr. McMonagle asked what the motion was.The motion was restated.Mr. McMonagle once again asked for the cost.Mr. Gallagher asked for a second on the motion at this time.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. GALLAGHER TO ALLOW DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that the cost of the increase in coverage would be $9,000.00 per annum.Mr. Mallon asked if the Township has had a chance to shop for a better price.The Township has not.

Mr. Gallagher suggested tabling this motion allowing the Township Manager time to research other insurance brokers for competitive costs.Mr. Leonhauser asked if this isn't part of the total insurance that the Township has from the one broker.Mr. Stepnoski said it would be an add on to the current policy.Mr. Leonhauser said he hates to go further with this minimal coverage but would agree to table to the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

Mr. McMonagle requested a history of what the coverage was in the past.He said for decades the Township did not have that type of coverage.Mr. Gallagher said Mr. Stepnoski can provide this information.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. Leonhauser if he is going to motion to table this issue or withdraw the motion.Mr. Leonhauser said he would withdraw the motion.

Mr. McMonagle reminded the Board that the $9,000.00 while it may seem like a negligible amount, it is not budgeted and is a new cost added after the budget has been approved.

Mr. Leonhauser believes the safety measure out trumps the money that Mr. McMonagle is speaking of.Mr. McMonagle said it is not providing safety.

Mr. Mallon would like to institute a quarterly budget review by having Mr. Stepnoski and the Finance Director report to the Board so the Board can report to the community where the Township stands from both a revenue and cost perspective on a quarterly basis.His concern is looking at what just occurred with the most recent budget and he certainly does not find fault with the Board as they did what they had to do in order to meet the expenses, but he doesn't want to be caught at the "eleventh hour" trying to jockey finances to make the numbers.

Mr. Mallon would like a list of some of the contracts the Township currently has, i.e., IT, telephone, HVAC, etc. to potentially RFQ them to see if the Township can save money.

ACTION:MR. MALLON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MCMONAGLE TO INSTITUTE A QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW TO BE PRESENTED AT THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING OF THE QUARTER.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stepnoski said the County has requested the Township participate in the County-wide Hazardous Waste Collection Program in the amount of $7,003.95.Since the inception of the program, the County has taken in 150 tons, which is 300,000 pounds of household hazardous waste.

Mr. Gallagher inquired if there is a line item in the 2010 budget for this.Mr. Stepnoski said he would check to make sure, but believes that it was picked up from last year's budget.

It was the consensus of the Board for the Township to participate in the County-wide Hazardous Waste Collection Program in the amount of $7,003.95.

Mr. Stepnoski said the DCNR has awarded the Township a grant in the amount of $180,000.00 for Beechwood Park.

Mr. Gallagher said he has done research with regard to public comment and where it states the maximum of 30 minutes, the intent is that is a 30 minute period and not 30 minutes per person with the second public comment period at the end of the meeting to pick up anything additional that wasn't accomplished in the first 30 minutes.He said there were court cases last year with regard to public comment and the time limit placed on public comment.Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. Pizzo if the law states that reasonable time limits may be set.Mr. Pizzo said yes.

Mr. Gallagher believes that public comment can be handled in 5 minutes and anything beyond that could be considered public oratory.He is interested in the Board's opinion on this particular subject.The reason there is public comment at the beginning and the end of the agenda is because Mr. Gallagher requested that.Mr. Gallagher has no idea where the idea came from in the paper that there would only be public comment at the end of public meetings.

Mr. McMonagle enlightened Mr. Gallagher where the idea came from with regard to the public comment at the end of the meeting was from the agenda that was put together for January 4^th which eliminated public comment from the beginning of the meeting and moved it to the end at #17 second from the end.Mr. Gallagher said he researched the last two reorganization meetings before the agenda was put together and the agenda that was used is 100% the same as the ones done in the past two years, run by Mr. Thompson and one by Mr. McMonagle.

Mr. Mallon said he is not for anything that is going to limit or eliminate the public's opportunity to speak as the Board serves the public and were elected by the public.It is a delicate balance between balancing the business needs of the Board's and the professionals that work in support of the Board and the professionals in the community that may come before the Board.Mr. Mallon said whatever decision is made as a Board must be sensitive to the needs of the community and must be sure to allow them to be heard.Mr. Mallon believes that a time limit should not be imposed but perhaps encouragement from the Board for the individual to get to their point.

Mr. McMonagle said this should be on a case by case basis as there may be an issue that needs to be talked out with give and take between Board members and the public.The court cases that Mr. Gallagher spoke of were spawned from Northampton Township where that particular Board of Supervisors has a policy of not speaking to their public and not answering questions in fact when citizens speak at Northampton Township meetings the Board just stares back at them.It has been the practice in Middletown Township when there is a discourse the Board engages with the citizens.He said it is up to the Chairperson to control the meeting.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. McMonagle that public comment always used to be at the beginning and end of every meeting and then suddenly it disappeared from the end of the meeting sometime in the last year or year and a half.Was there a reason it disappeared from the end of the meeting?

Mr. McMonagle answered he does not recall what the rationale was to remove it from the end of the meeting.The tradition was that the Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting was for anyone to bring any new issues or revisit issues from a previous meeting.Mr. McMonagle disagreed with Mr. Pizzo where he stated that each item is not open to public comment; i.e., appointments to Boards and Commissions and the motion for quarterly budget review.

At this point Mr. Gallagher opened the issue to public comment.

Mr. Geonnotti commended the Board for changing the public meeting from Tuesday to Monday to avoid the conflict with the Neshaminy School Board meetings and also changing the time from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. which allows those citizens that work later to attend the meetings.He believes it is great that the Board allows 30 minutes for public comment.

Mr. Gallagher clarified that the 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting is not per person that was meant to be a maximum of 30 minutes for that period.It has been taken to be 30 minutes per person recently and that is really not what it was meant to be.Mr. Geonnotti requested that the Board not limit the public comment to 5 to 7 minutes.

Robert McCarney, 47 Harvest Road, Levittown said he recently attended a U.S. Senate Sub-committee hearing that allows each person that testifies 5 minutes.Their testimony has been submitted in paper format as well, but 5 to 7 minutes is not a bad time limit for public comment.

Andy Warren, 294 Shady Brooke Drive, Langhorne said this is a governmental meeting and that is the business that is to be acted on twice a month.He categorically disagrees with a 5 to 7 minute limit and believes that the Board is most fair in the way the public comment in Middletown is handled.As a member of the public Mr. Warren believes that a 3 minute limit per person at the beginning of the meeting would allow 10 citizens to address the Board at a reasonable hour and then the Board could move on with their business.

Harry Arnold, 1007 West Maple Avenue, Langhorne disagrees with Mr. Warren with a time limit being put on public comment.As Mr. McMonagle pointed out, Mr. Gallagher is the Chairperson and it is at his discretion to interrupt somebody politely if they are rambling.

Steve Rodos, Villages of Flowers Mill resident agreed with Andy Warren.He believes that if there are that many people that have to talk for an extended lengthy of time it is something that should become an agenda item.He commended the Board on the fact that they do answer the citizens as they are speaking.

Jerry Coleman, Twin Oak Drive, Levittown, believes that every resident that attends a public meeting should have the opportunity to address the Board prior to decisions being made.

Mr. Gallagher clarified that the discussion being held refers to the Public Comment on non-agenda items and does not apply to any item on the agenda.There will always be public comment on agenda items as that is part of state law.

Mr. Mallon suggested a compromise keeping in mind the comments of Mr. Warren and Mr. McMonagle that perhaps the public comment be kept to 30 minutes and there isn't an official time per resident but Mr. Gallagher, as chairman keep a clock going in his head that if he sees a specific resident rambling and there are other residents that want to share their opinion that they be asked to come to a point and sit down so that other residents may speak.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. Mallon for clarification.Mr. Mallon suggested a 30 minute initial period and if there are still residents that need to speak to the Board about a pressing issue that the Board deals with that on a case by case basis.

ACTION:MR. MALLON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. KREILING TO PUT PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING WITH A 30 MINUTE TIME LIMIT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS; HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE RESIDENTS THAT NEED TO COMMENT, THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT BE HELD AFTER THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD IS COMPLETE TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE THEIR COMMENT.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

11.ADJOURNMENT.

ACTION:MR. MALLON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. KREILING TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT 8:33 P.M.