|
Post by Molly Maguire on Feb 25, 2005 10:48:39 GMT -5
So, it's OK to use public moneys to buy private property to effect land-use priorities? I sure would like to retire early. Not having the Brooklyn Bridge to sell, I sure wish I owned a farm in the Township!
|
|
|
Post by Gus on Feb 25, 2005 14:07:44 GMT -5
Absent of any other possible explanation for their irresponsible behavior and provincial actions, I can only postulate that the five supervisors from South Middleton township must be auditioning for a new SITCOM on the comedy channel. Their most recent actions are the apotheosis of corrupted power and unbridled ambition. Who's next on the hit list???
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 26, 2005 0:20:31 GMT -5
Where do we start with this list of issues?
1. Comcast - the supervisors need to face up to the fact that no company is going to come in here, install a new infrastructure and provide the services Comcast provides. Comcast is cable folks. They are the giant in the industry. Let's get a deal done already and move on. I hope we are not dumping a lot of money on this consultant. We could use that money elsewhere.
2. Development - The hopes of keeping South Middleton rural are dimming fast. The developments approved will bring new challenges to the area. Our school population will continue to grow. The assumption that only retired military were settling here has proven incorrect. Just look at the jungle gyms, etc, you see all around these developments. Our schools will feel the impact and so will the township. I am curious as to whether the township has done any strategic planning with regards to the changing face of this community?
3. The Cell Tower - as I said earlier, I am discouraged at the proposed "solution" of placing the tower at the park. We dont need the tower and we especially do not need it there. The health risks are uncertain and that concerns me. I find it hard to believe that Shentel needs the tower. If they want to provide service, then colocate on an existing tower.
|
|
|
Post by Eileen on Feb 26, 2005 7:38:15 GMT -5
Mike,
I think you're absolutely right on each of your points. And I didn't even mention the dam issue or the ongoing warehouse issue.
Your point about whether anyone is doing any long-term planning is particularly on target. Why is it that we seem to get into trouble everytime any type of development other than residential is brought before the board? That alone tells me that someone needs to take a good look at our zoning ordinances. The fact that our supervisors seem unable to make decisions tells me they're not up to the task.
And if the supervisors are really concerned about keeping South Middleton green, they should revisit their residential zoning ordinances. For medium density housing, which most of these developments are, the setback is only 15 feet at each side of the property. Come visit us in Indian Hills and see what that's doing. Then visit Fairfax County, Virginia to see how bad it can get.
We need some folks at the township who are willing to recognize these issues and deal with them rather than talk them to death while doing nothing.
Eileen
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 28, 2005 17:30:56 GMT -5
Eileen -
Have you given any thought to running for Supervisor? I know you were on the school board, but I was wondering if you have given thought to running for a township post?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Eileen on Feb 28, 2005 19:09:24 GMT -5
Mike,
I'm not planning anything right now. I think there is a good person running for the only potentially vacant seat on the board. . .and I'm still really busy. But thanks for asking.
Eileen
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 28, 2005 23:43:59 GMT -5
Well, keep up the vigilance!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 28, 2005 23:51:03 GMT -5
Eileen -
Can you email me when you have a chance? I want to ask your input on something. My email is kmberk@comcast.net.
Thanks!
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Mar 1, 2005 10:41:53 GMT -5
Eileen,
Regarding the CATCB (tax colleciton) issue, why do you think the township is being unreasonable? From what I can gather, the township is changing tax collectors so they need CATCB to turn over the records on the residents of S. Middleton that they were collecting taxes from. This seems like a perfectly reasonable and necessary request.
However, for some unknown reason, CATCB will not turn over these records and there is a dispute over tax revenues that are owed to the township by CATCB. There is some question as to whether the records being witheld are even accurate. Furthermore, the new tax collection agency needs this information to do their job.
So, even if it ends up costing money to get the information (and perhaps money) from CATCB that rightfully belongs to them, this needs to be pursued.
Think of it this way - if you went into Giant and at the checkout counter they gave you a total amount that didn't seem right and they refused to provide a reciept to prove it, wouldn't you think something is fishy? Wouldn't you demand some sort of proof even if getting it took more effort than the amount of money you could get out of it would justify?
FYI, here are the Supervisors meeting minutes that discuss this matter - please let me know what you would have done differently if you were in their shoes.
Mr. Mislitsky stated the procedure for the lawsuit filed against the Capital Area Tax Collection Bureau (CATCB). An alternative procedure is to request an injunction relief. This request would allow a quick hearing & judicial intervention. He feels that this case will not be able to be worked out between the Township & CATCB. The CATCB is not cooperating with turning over the Township’s records. Paul Robinson & Mike Hill, representatives from the Township’s new tax collection agency (CENTAX), were present to discuss this issue. Mr. Robinson said that CENTAX is looking forward to working with the Township. He said they will be mailing information to the residents introducing themselves as the new tax collection agency. He also stated that the prior tax administrator must surrender the requested documents, & that CENTAX will assist the Township in securing the documents. CENTAX has an immediate need for these documents/data in order to start performing their duties. Tom pointed out that the injunction is appropriate, & noted how abusive CATCB has been to the residents. He hopes CENTAX will be citizen-friendly. Mr. Robinson said that CENTAX will send regular & certified letters before any legal action is taken. Mr. Mislitsky pointed out that getting a court injunction will not be easy, but CATCB needs to know that the Township is serious on this issue. Ron confirmed he is agreeable with an injunction. Phyllis asked why they would refuse to turn over the records. Mr. Robinson said he does not know why; it is usually a smooth process, & that CATCB is breaking their agreement. Bryan feels that CATCB is breaking the law, & that the injunction is necessary. Jim wished CENTAX good luck.
Dick Cummins, Greenfields, asked what records were requested. Currently, CENTAX has no information. Mr. Robinson explained why the records are important & contain a lot of detailed information that the Township does not have.
Doug Gale, Derbyshire Drive, feels there may be something more sinister in not turning over the records, & that the records may not be as accurate as they should be. He agreed that the Township should request an audit on CATCB.
Bryan made a motion to file the injunction against Capital Area Tax Collection Bureau. Ron seconded, & the vote in favor was unanimous. The Board thanked Mr. Robinson & Mr. Hill for their input.
|
|
|
Post by Eileen on Mar 1, 2005 12:01:31 GMT -5
Chad,
What I would have done differently is that I wouldn't have switched tax collection services in the first place. The history on this issue is that there were a couple of students who, because they didn't owe any taxes, didn't file a tax return. CATCB brought the students up before the district justice, who told the students that there would be no penalty if they just filed their returns. The supervisors brought the issue to the school board, and the school board said that they would take action to ensure that students understood that they were required to file local tax returns. From that point on, every student who applied for a work permit would receive a notice that contained the tax requirements, including the requirement to file a return regardless of whether taxes were owed. (I know that I am currect in this because I was on the school board's committee that met with the supervisors.) That should have solved the problem.
But the supervisors decided to change tax collection bureaus anyway because CATCB was running "roughshod" over the citizens(!). Their solution now requires every resident to file two local tax returns, one for the school district and one for the township. Those of us who file our local taxes quarterly are now required to make 10 submissions each year instead of 5. My question is who's really running roughshod here? The supervisors are inconveniencing every taxpayer in the township because two students didn't do what they should have done to begin with. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the supervisors to at least wait to see if the school board's solution worked?
In terms of the current dispute, you would be absolutely correct in assuming that the supervisors were making a reasonable request IF that's all there was to it. My understanding, however, is that CATCB won't turn over the records requested because it says the township owes money in overpayment and that, if the township returned the overpayment amount (which, as I recall was in the neighborhood of $58,000), CATCB would provide the requested records.
Think of it this way. You go into Giant and want groceries. Giant has the groceries you want but says that you need to pay for them. Should they provide you with the groceries if you don't?
Now, I may be misunderstanding the current dispute to some degree, but I don't think so. At this point, the township certainly would be within its rights to request an audited report from CATCB. But this whole mess, and subsequent expenditure of our tax money, would have been unnecessary had the supervisors chosen to work the with school board rather than go off and do their own thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Mar 1, 2005 13:06:57 GMT -5
Eileen,
Thanks for your reply. I don't know which of the two issues had a greater impact on the boards decision to dump CATCB but in my mind, the records issue alone is more than enough to justify dumping CATCB. The township is allowing CATCB to collect taxes from the township's residents so any records related to the business of doing so should be made readily accessible to the township officials.
If these records or an independent audit show that the township owes the money to CATCB, they could easily end this by coming forth with those records. If such proof is offered, any reasonable person would say that the township should pay up and we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't do so.
As it is, CATCB is stonewalling and it looks like it will take legal action for them to give up the records. They have given no rational reason for this lack of cooperation. I smell fish.
Chad
|
|
|
Post by Eileen on Mar 1, 2005 13:43:35 GMT -5
Chad,
Since the current issue didn't arise until after the supervisors decided to make the switch, I'd say the student issue probably carried the weight.
Also, I think there are two sets of records here. The township wants the taxpayer records; CATCB should produce other records to prove overpayment. I definitely agree that CTACB needs to prove its case, but can't blame them for holding onto records until any funds in question are paid. What else do they have as collateral? I honestly think that both sides are at fault here, but I'm tired of hearing the words "roughshod" and "abusive" from the supervisors when that wasn't the cause of the original problem at all.
You're right about the fishy odor. . .but I think that, just perhaps, there are two rotting fish.
|
|
|
Post by Liz Knouse on Mar 1, 2005 23:49:45 GMT -5
Eileen, Well said! I remember the issue coming to the board as well. You are absolutely correct----it was 2 teenagers and we worked out a system to ensure kids knew how to file. Nobody mentioned the form letter that went out from the township-----who wrote that??? With all the "lawyer-ese", I needed a dictionary to understand the letter and I had the benefit of the school board meetings and our minutes from the township meetings! Wonder how many residents just read the first 3 sentences and threw it away? Liz
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Mar 2, 2005 10:40:22 GMT -5
"Collateral?" I didn't know these agencies operated on the basis of withholding records as leverage against their own clients. It's not like this is a bank lending money to someone with a questionable credit rating who might be difficult to locate when they don't make their payments.
How about just producing the records as a form of proof of what they are asserting and if they do so and the township doesn't pay, only then is it a matter for the courts to decide. I don't blame the township for this ending up in the courts. They never should have had to resort to that but a this point I don't see what other option they have.
|
|
|
Post by Eileen on Mar 2, 2005 13:30:37 GMT -5
Chad, Yep. . .I meant collateral. But this string is getting far afield. My original missive dealt with taxes, and I would like to bring it back to that. I had an interesting and lengthy conversation last evening with Bryan Gembusia. Maybe now I can sort some of this out. In terms of the whole tax collection issue, Bryan admitted that part of the reason that the township was interested in making a switch was because of the incident involving the students. He also said, though, that the township's contract with CATCB was up, so they went out for bids. CENTAX's bid would save them about $10,000 over CATCB, so the switch was made. In terms of the records, my understanding was that CATCB was holding the records as collateral (or, if you prefer, Chad. . .hostage) because the township owed funds for a previous overpayment. As it turns out, CATCB deductedthe disputed amount from the township's regular payment. OF COURSE, CATCB owes the township: 1. An audited report showing that there really was an overpayment. 2. The tax files requested by the township. Actually, I think CATCB should have put the disputed amount in escrow until the whole thing was sorted out, but nonetheless, given the fact that they now have the amount that was claimed as an overpayment, CATCB should certainlyturn over the files to the township. Hopefully, obtaining the files that the township needs will not cost the taxpayers a lot. In fact, assuming the township wins its case, legal costs should be borne by CATCB. That should put that one to bed. Now, if someone over at the township building could decide that those of us who currently have to file quarterly could file annually, instead, that would be great. (If I could editorialize for just one more minute, though. . .if the reason the township changed tax agencies was really for cost savings, it's incredibly unhelpful to continue making statements about "running roughshod." Why not just be up front rather than introducing points that not only aren't true but will serve to cause angst among the taxpayers and between the township and CATCB?) In terms of the green space and zoning, we definitely have a problem. Bryan assured me that the whole zoning issue was being looked at so that the township can more foreward with some sort of reasonable development plan without the necessity to spend our money to buy farms to preserve green space. Finally, Brian assured me that if I had to switch to DSL that he would personally make sure everything at my office works right (get in line, folks!). I'm willing to give Bryan and the other supervisors a chance to sort this mess out (Bryan thinks it will take about 6 months) and, in the meantime, spend my energy trying to figure out why those of us in the Harrisburg area are having our taxes diverted to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But I will also continue to watch developments, albeit from a distance, to ensure that the mess actually does, in fact, get straight. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this dialog. We can't solve any problems if we can't discuss them rationally. Eileen
|
|