Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, February 16 2010

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 16, 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.After the pledge of allegiance Mr. Leonhauser called the roll.All Supervisors were in attendance along with 20 interested citizens.

2.ANNOUNCEMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AWARDS AND REPORTS.

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

3.PUBLIC COMMENT.NON-AGENDA ITEMS ONLY.

Mike & Karen Fields operators of the farm at Styers expressed their concern about the installation of a cell tower at the North Middletown Substation.He suggested with a 1,200 acre county park and 107 acre preserved Styer Farm it doesn't seem appropriate to put this cell tower at the location that is proposed.He also wants to know how this was done without neighbors being notified.

At a public meeting last year Mr. Leonhauser asked if residents would be notified of the proposed sites for installation of the cell towers.He was advised that residents would be given an opportunity to speak about the installation of the cell towers and Tower One would be acting as an independent agent that would go through the Planning Commission and Zoning Hearing Board.Mr. Fields stated that he did not find any proof of any other dates where the cell towers were open to public comment.

Mr. Gallagher said he asked the same question this evening as a cell tower has been installed within a block of his home and he was not notified.Mr. Gallagher said he was told that when the codification of the ordinances happened last year it exempted municipal property from zoning ordinances.Tower One was hired by a previous board to find areas of municipal property to install these cell towers and they were authorized to do it and there wasn't a requirement for any of the municipal properties.

Mr. Gallagher agreed with Mr. Fields and stated that the appearance of sneaking it through under the cloak of darkness is the appearance that exists whether that is what happened or not.Unfortunately a previous board approved this and he doesn't know a way around it.

Mr. Leonhauser said that is why he requested that residents be made aware of the cell towers prior to installation.

Mr. Mallon said he understands that it is the potential revenue opportunity for the Township, but inquired if there is any recourse the Township may have at this point contractually where we could go back to Tower One and relook at their proposed map to see if there is a less-intrusive way for the towers to be erected that doesn't have the impact on the community.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that Tower One has been looking at sites throughout the Township and many sites are not suitable.

Mr. Mallon requested an implementation schedule from Tower One for review by the Board and then publish it so that the community may see where the proposed towers will be located and where there seems to be a lot of resistance to the towers from the community perhaps an alternative site could be found.

Mr. Stepnoski said that with regard to commercial properties the notification process still applies.

Mr. Gallagher suggested that the Board have the opportunity to approve the leases on the cell towers prior to installation.The information could then be put on the public access channel allowing residents the opportunity for public comment.

Mr. Fields said the Township divided three out parcels on the Styer property and used County and State farm and preservation funds to buy those parcels and used Township funds to buy the out parcels.The farmland preservation parcels have deed restrictions on them and the Township cannot do whatever they want with them.Mr. Fields read the following from the agreement of sale with Pop Styers:

"T. WALTER (POPS) STYERS, IN HIS AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP STIPULATED THAT THE PROPERTY REMAIN AGRICULTURAL AND PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY."

Mr. Fields suggested that the Board look at the agreement of sale and review what Pops Styers originally wanted for this land.

Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Stepnoski if the proposed cell tower site is located on the North Middletown Substation property.Mr. Stepnoski said that is correct at which Mr. McMonagle stated that is not deed restricted land, it is Township owned land.Mr. McMonagle said the property that the North Substation is built on was purchased from Ray Styer.

Doris Bower, 1821 Langhorne-Yardley Road, knew Pops Styer very well and explained in great detail the family history and stated that Pops would have never agreed to selling the Township outparcels.The only two people that owned land on the farm were Pops and his son, Tom.Ms. Bower also stated that the proposed tower will be right up against her fence.With regard to the North Substation building, Ms. Bower also stated that she was never given the opportunity to view the plans prior to the building being built.

Mr. Gallagher asked if the lease has been signed for the installation of the cell tower at the North Substation location.Mr. Stepnoski said he would check, but that the lease has been reviewed by both the solicitor and the engineer.Mr. Gallagher would like to see the lease for the North Substation and the cell tower behind his property held up and put on an agenda and notify the residents allowing them the opportunity to understand what is going on.

Mr. McMonagle said that the North Substation site was prior to the change in the codification.The Township talked about the negotiations with Tower One exhaustively and it was agreed by the Board at the time that every time a cell tower goes up on private or commercial property the Township is losing potential revenue.At the present time it is $50,000.00 per year and it is Mr. McMonagle's opinion that wherever a cell tower has to go a site location is selected after scrutinizing transmission data and signaling requirements.

Mr. McMonagle pointed out that everyone that comes out against cell towers is most likely a cell phone user and they are using the services of a cell tower that maybe somebody else doesn't like.It is a lot of "not in my back yard" and quite frankly it will cost the Township money.Mr. Gallagher's characterization that this happened as some dark move in a back room is not plausible as it was discussed exhaustively.

Mr. Gallagher said the appearance of impropriety is the fact that if the tower were to e installed on commercial property it would have to go through zoning, but just because it is a municipal property, it does not and no one has to be notified.He once again stated that he didn't say it was an impropriety; it has the appearance of being one.

Mr. Leonhauser said the only reason he voted for that was because he was assured that the neighbors would be notified and it would go through zoning and planning otherwise he wouldn't have voted for the cell tower.

Mr. Mallon asked for an implementation schedule, the geographies and review as a board and based on the plan put together a communication schedule to the residents providing an opportunity to come in for public comment.Mr. Mallon doesn't believe that anything was done with the intent to deceive or to hide, but believes the public has a right to comment on this especially if it is in their backyard.As a community, everyone needs to realize that the ability to raise revenue in Middletown Township is relatively captivated and there are not a lot of opportunities to raise revenue.There may be some sacrifices that the community may have to make as a community to get revenues or as a community there may be an increase in taxes.

Mr. Gallagher agreed with Mr. Mallon, but the difference is the tower has not gone up at the North Substation and the Veterans' Highway property the tower is up, but the cage, fenced in area or any of the electronics have not been put in.He would like this issue to be put on an agenda allowing residents the opportunity to voice their opinion.

Mr. McMonagle said there have been numerous precedents where Omnipoint which was the largest erector of towers would get refused for installation of a tower on either commercial or private property and would then go before Common Pleas Court and had it reversed.All that has ever happened is a delay for a year and then the cell tower company goes to court and wins.Unless some type of underground or invisible technology the cell towers are going to line the I-95 corridor from Mane to Florida.Mr. McMonagle believes that Middletown Township should get in on the revenues.

Mr. Stepnoski said in answer to what Mr. Mallon was stating, these are the only two sites that have any value at the present time.Tower One is looking for additional sites and the Board will be informed of any potential sites and then they can be posted on the website and have a public meeting.

Mr. Fields said he is not unsympathetic for the need of revenues as he is a farmer which is one of the lowest profit industries.Revenue is fine, but Pops Styer donated the property not for revenue but for the people. Mr. Fields once again implored the Township to look into the agreement with Pops Styer as it was his wish to preserve this land and not have a cell tower on it.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that the previous Township Solicitor Mike Savona researched this issue and the property is free and clear.Mr. Stepnoski said the Township would not have been able to build the North Substation without having free and clear title to the property.

Mr. Gallagher said he agrees with Mr. McMonagle, but where he has a problem is that the Township owns these little pieces of property all over the place basically because they were required as open space when developments were built; or greenbelts because they were donated.The property cannot be used as the land is usually in a drainage area, the slope is bad, it is heavily wooded, etc. and then say the Township can do whatever they want without having to notify the neighbors.

Mr. McMonagle said the Township is not going to build over a creek or in Lyons Park or any of the postage stamp size parcels that Mr. Gallagher is talking about.There is a lot of scientific data and engineering that goes into where the transmission and reception is required for a cell tower.

4.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.

A.CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF BILL LISTS #2-2 DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2010, #2-3 DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2010 AND #2-4 DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2010.

B.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FEBRUARY 1, 2010 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

C.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE REQUEST BY BUCKS COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION TO WAIVE THE GRADING PERMIT FEE FOR THE CORE CREEK DOG PARK.

D.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF 3 POLICE VEHICLES.

E.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A 2010 FORD ESCAPE HYBRID FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE.

F.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF 2 TRUCKS; 1 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND 1 FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION.

G.CONSIDERATION OF ENACTING RESOLUTION #10-01R AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES FOR RDA REIMBURSEMENT OF GRANT MONIES.

H.CONSIDERATION OF ENACTING RESOLUTION #10-02R POLICE PENSION SMOOTHING.

I.CONSIDERATION OF ENACTING RESOLUTION #10-03R NON-UNIFORMED PENSION SMOOTHING.

J.CONSIDERATION OF ENACTING RESOLUTIONS #10-04R AND #10-05R DECLARING A LIMITED STATE OF SNOW EMERGENCY.

K.CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER AND FINANCE DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE DEBT REFINANCING.

Mr. McMonagle requested that Items D, E, & F be removed from the Consent Agenda items to be discussed and voted on separately.

ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLON TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A, B, C, G, H, I & J AS LISTED ABOVE.

Mr. Gallagher requested an explanation of Items G, H, I and K.Mr. Stepnoski advised that Item G is the request for signatures that will allow for reimbursement of Redevelopment Funds.Items H & I are combined and in the odd number years, the actuarial study for the pension plans must be recalculated and that is to keep pension plans solvent throughout the state.In doing that due to the economic hit that the Township recently took, the State government realized that all townships would have a problem because last year was a bad year.So in recalculating the actuarial study, every plan across the state would appear to be in bad shape.

Mr. Stepnoski provided more detailed information by way of a slide to the Board through bar grafts.If the Board enacts the resolutions as proposed and go to 30% smoothing, the Townships obligation drops down to $1.1 million.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that Item K is necessary because there are bonds that are coming up that can be refinanced.Currently the rates have changed and are favorable to the Township and this will allow the Township to move forward and let PFM pursue a refunding.The Township could possibly make $200,000.00 by refunding bonds and reissuing bonds.All of this is under the direction of the Township's Finance Advisory Committee.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Kreiling asked if the funds for the purchase of the vehicles is in this year's budget.Mr. Stepnoski said yes.The Police Department has a rotation cycle and the three police vehicles that will be replaced will be used by other departments within the Township.Mr. Kreiling asked if there has been any thought given to putting in for the Casino Grant funds to offset the costs in the budget.

Mr. Stepnoski said the Township could apply for monies next year, but it would be a one shot deal.Mr. Gallagher said the Township will be looking at a lot of capital expenditures with the Casino money if at all possible.

Mr. Mallon said with that in mind, is there any way to keep these vehicles in service to apply for those loans and retain the money in the budget to help fund other things, i.e. the budgetary impact of the recent snowstorm.

Mr. Stepnoski said the purchase of every one of the vehicles could be postponed.A lengthy discussion was held concerning postponing the purchase of the vehicles along with the actual need of a hybrid vehicle for the Fire Marshal's office.

Mr. McMonagle said the most important question before the Board votes on purchasing six vehicles, is the price and what the process for purchasing the vehicles is.

Mr. Stepnoski said he has the purchase orders for the police vehicles that are priced at $19,000 each with add on equipment.The trucks are Ford F350 trucks and were competitively priced on Co-stars at $29,000.Mr. Wendel received a bid from a local dealer for a Ford F350 that was $31,000.

Mr. McMonagle suggested that the vehicles be put out to bid.He also would like to wait until July or August when the Casino grants are announced.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that Mr. Pizzo comes from a community that uses CNG compressed natural gas vehicles and believes it to work out pretty well.Mr. Pizzo said they are used primarily for the fire marshal's office and the code enforcement officer to go out and do inspections.He stated that there are 6 CNG vehicles in the fleet along with several smart cars.

ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. GALLAGHER TO PUT ALL SIX (6) VEHICLES OUT FOR PUBLIC BID.

Mr. Mallon asked if this should be put out to bid or should we wait for grant funds.Mr. McMonagle said bids could be returned to the Township that have expiration dates beyond the award of the grants.

Mr. Leonhauser asked what the specifications are for the police vehicles and are they through the state plan.Mr. Stepnoski said the vehicles are through the state plan.

Mr. Gallagher opened this issue to public comment.

Martin Duffy, Parkview Avenue, Langhorne asked for the mileage of the police vehicles.He stated the police vehicles are beat and if the vehicles have 70,000 miles they are unsafe.This is a safety issue and if the funds are in the budget, the Board should move forward with the purchase of the police vehicles.

Ryan Marte, 152 N. Woodbine Avenue, Langhorne, asked why the Township did not apply for RDA funds for these police vehicles and all other items.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that the Township had applied in a previous year for grants for police equipment and it was rejected.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. McMonagle if he would be agreeable to tabling this motion to the next public meeting to allow the Township Manager time to get the exact pricing and mileage of the existing vehicles and the maintenance of them.Mr. McMonagle agreed and said he would also like an inventory of the entire police department fleet, including the mileage and number of vehicles.

ACTION:MR. MCMONAGLE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLON TO TABLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS D, E & F PENDING A FULL INVENTORY OF THE POLICE FLEET, PRICING FROM THE CO-STARS LIST AND MILEAGE ON EACH OF THE VEHICLES.MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH MR. LEONHAUSER OPPOSED.

5.CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FROM ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER ER EXPANSION TO JUNE 30, 2010; PRELIMINARY PLAN OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, TMP #22-004-019, IN THE R-2/R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, 1200 LANGHORNE-NEWTOWN ROAD, S/LD #09-12.

ACTION:MR. MALLON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MCMONAGLE TO ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FROM ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER ER EXPANSION TO JUNE 30, 2010; PRELIMINARY PLAN OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, TMP #22-004-019, IN THE R-2/R-3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, 1200 LANGHORNE-NEWTOWN ROAD, S/LD #09-12.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that St. Mary Medical Center is planning to have several meetings with the neighbors.Another issue is they are waiting to hear from FAA because they are planning to move the heliport from the ground level to the top of one of the garages.Everything else is in order and the Township Planning Commission is fine with what has been presented.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that Jay McManus of Travelers is present to provide information on the Uninsured and Underinsured motor vehicle coverage.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. McManus to explain the purpose of the insurance polices the Township has in force.Mr. McManus said specifically the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage are applicable to the other motorist that may cause an accident.In the absence of insurance on that driver, the uninsured coverage essentially becomes the auto liability insurance for that driver.For example if one of the municipal employees is in an accident with a citizen that is underinsured or has no insurance coverage, the uninsured motorist coverage provision that currently exists in the Township's insurance policy becomes the auto liability insurance coverage for that driver.

Mr. Gallagher said for example if an employee from DPW goes out and has an accident and is hurt and the individual they have an accident with has no insurance, does this uninsured/

underinsured policy protect the township employee and who has to sue.Mr. McManus said in the event an employee is in an accident, that employee is entitled to medical and loss time coverage under workers' compensation.They are also entitled as an individual to bring suit against the other party involved in the accident.The uninsured motorist coverage that exists in the Township's policy then becomes the auto liability coverage for the other driver.The individual still needs to take an action and bring suit against that driver in a court of law.

Mr. Gallagher said as an individual he has more than $35,000 uninsured/underinsured coverage on his insurance policy.He asked how it can be stated that $35,000 is a sufficient amount for the entire Township to have for its entire fleet.

Mr. McManus said it is important not to confuse what that coverage is (uninsured/underinsured).In terms of the Township's actual liability coverage there is $1 million of coverage for each accident and an umbrella policy with an additional $9 million.The current insurance policy does have the state minimum of $35,000 coverage for a combined single limit per event.Mr. McManus clarified so that no one is under false impression about coverage levels; commercial insurance policies do not provide stacking for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.This is an issue that has caused a lot of discussion and ambiguity, but the fact of the matter is under personal policies uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is stackable; it is not stackable under commercial insurance policies.This was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in December of 2007.So the Board understands, it is not each vehicle in the Township times $35,000, being the resulting amount of uninsured motorist coverage, it is $35,000 per event in a combined single limit.

Mr. McManus provided cost estimates for coverage options ranging from $50,000 to $1 million for the Board's consideration.

Mr. Gallagher asked for additional clarification o the issue of additional liabilities insurance of $1 million and $9 million.Mr. McManus explained that is the liability insurance the Township maintains on itself for accidents that can cause a liability to the Township.If a Township employee is involved in a car accident and the Township is sued because it is determined that the employee was at fault, the Township is protected for $1 million per accident for a combined single limit.The Township also maintains an umbrella policy with an additional $9 million of coverage on top of the $1 million so the total amount of coverage is approximately $10 million.Mr. Gallagher asked if that is only if the Township employee is at fault.Mr. McManus said if it is determined that there was negligence on the part of the employee and the Court found that negligence existed and granted an award that coverage would then respond to that award and also the defense of the case.

Mr. Leonhauser asked if this had anything to do with injury on the part of the Township employee.Mr. McManus said that is correct and that is where the Township employee was determined to be negligible and a lawsuit is brought against the Township.

Mr. Mallon asked if there is a Township employee that has been in an accident the individual at fault doesn't have insurance there's some sort of catastrophic injury, what recourse does the Township employee have if the underinsured individual doesn't have any assets.

Mr. McManus said the first remedy is workers' compensation which is unlimited, so that medical and lost time benefits are paid primary first and foremost under workers' compensation.The injured employee also has the right to bring suit separate from benefits they are receiving under workers' compensation against the other party.The remedy is whatever the court decides to award the employee as a result of the lawsuit they bring against that individual and the uninsured motorist coverage would then respond to that and provide for settlement of that claim on behalf of the injured employee.

Mr. Gallagher once again asked for clarification if the Township were to raise the coverage to $1 million like other townships have and the Township were sued it would be the last time because we would be dropped almost immediately after a claim was put against it and the Township would have a hard time getting additional insurance.Mr. McManus said that is not correct, if an accident were to occur and the Board elects to go to $1 million coverage for uninsured motorist coverage and there were a claim and the insurance company responds at that level it is unlikely the Township would be dropped.The Township's rates will go up, but not astronomically.

Mr. Gallagher is not sure if increasing to $1 million is the correct amount, but $35,000 is too low even though it is the state minimum.Once again Mr. McManus explained that in terms of lawsuits brought against the Township related to auto accidents and liability to the Township, the Township has $1 million of underlying coverage with an additional $9 million in umbrella coverage which is necessary because of the amount of assets the Township owns.

Mr. McMonagle said the bottom line as Mr. McManus has explained is that the Township is adequately covered.Mr. McManus said the Township is absolutely adequately covered in terms of protection of its assets under the auto liability and the umbrella coverage.

Mr. Mallon asked what the amount is that majority of his clients carry for uninsured/under- insured coverage.He said of his governmental entity clients one out of four carry the $1 million coverage with two thirds carrying closer to the minimum.

Mr. Leonhauser asked if the higher amount would safeguard the Township and employees a little bit more.Mr. McManus said if the Township were to increase the uninsured motorist coverage from its current level to a higher amount it would provide an option for employees that are on the road on a regular basis have a remedy in addition to workers' compensation.Mr. Leonhauser said Mr. McManus stated that some townships carry the minimum and some carry the higher amount of coverage maybe it is a correlation of how the township rates their employees.Mr. McManus said that is a qualitative decision the Board needs to discuss.Historically the township had maintained $35,000 and then moved from $35,000 to a higher number for a period of 2 years and then reverted back to the minimum.

ACTION:MR. LEONHAUSER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR MALLON TO INCREASE THE UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE COVERAGETO $1 MILLION AT A COST OF $9,176.00 TO SAFEGUARD BOTH THE TOWNSHIP AND EMPLOYEES.

Mr. McMonagle asked where the $9,176.00 will come from.Mr. Gallagher stated the Board saved $10,000.00 at the last meeting in the cost of the auditors and will be saving a significant amount today in tabling the purchase of vehicles by going out to bid as Mr. McMonagle suggested.Once again Mr. Gallagher stated that he is not sure that $1 million is the right number, but if you look at the pricing provided by Mr. McManus the Township would be getting 4 times the coverage for this amount and would not only be protecting the Township but the employees.

Mr. McMonagle said the Township's insurance broker stated that there hasn't been a claim against in 5 years.Mr. Gallagher stated that there are 2 pending claims.Mr. McMonagle is concerned about inviting more claims with the increase in the coverage and they have heard that there is a correlation to that.Mr. Gallagher is also concerned.With regard to Mr. Gallagher's statements about saving money and perhaps not purchasing police cars, Mr. McMonagle believes that is dangerous when those sorts of suppositions are made and not dealing with hard facts.One of the hard facts is the cost of snow removal this winter thus far.

Mr. Mallon asked Mr. Stepnoski to take a look at the budget and see where he can carve $9,100.00 out of some line item to help fund the insurance policy.Mr. Mallon agrees with both Mr. McMonagle and Mr. Gallagher and is concerned about potential lawsuits, but the Board must keep their eye on the budget.Mr. Mallon is not saying that the employees are not worth it, but there was recently a tax increase and he doesn't want to talk to those residents that he promised he was going to do everything he could to hold the line on taxes.

Mr. Leonhauser said $10,000.00 was saved and he wants to see a vote on this issue right now.He said the Board has been through this the last three meetings and if Mr. Stepnoski wants to go back through the budget and try and cut other places for the future, that's fine, but let's get this out of the way and safeguard the Township and our employees who are important as all of the regular citizens, because they also are citizens of this township.

Mr. Kreiling asked why there is such a great difference in the premium cost with the increase in the uninsured/underinsured coverage.Mr. McManus said the limit options he provided were the limit options that were requested and there are additional limit options that exist between $50,000.00 and $1 million.Mr. Kreiling said the quote lists $50,000.00 coverage at $509.00 and $100,000.00 coverage is $2,100.00.Mr. McManus said it is based on the awards and the cost per thousand goes down in the larger amounts of coverage due to the frequency of awards.It was also pointed out that the cost to the Township for the remainder of this year would be prorated.

Mr. Kreiling asked if Mr. McManus could go back to his company and perhaps negotiate a better price.Mr. McManus said he could go back again, but he did ask that question in anticipation that the Board would ask, but the likelihood of getting any additional concessions on that is minimal.

At this point Mr. Gallagher opened the issue to public comment.There was no public comment.

MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH MR. MCMONAGLE OPPOSED.

Mr. Gallagher stated that the Skyline Fire District Association was also added to this agenda to satisfy the request for a quarterly meeting that was to be with the Township Manager and has moved to the entire Board at a public meeting.

Ryan Marte, Chairman of the Skyline Fire District said this is a very unorthodox fashion to be meeting with the Board in a public session.He has been with the SFDA for over 12 years and typically they meet with the Manager as needed per the contract.He is very uncomfortable doing this in the public setting, but there isn't anything to hide.

Mr. Ryan said the Skyline Fire District Association is segregated into operational with the chairman of the chiefs being Frank Farry and Ryan Marte who oversees the entire SFDA.Some highlights from 2009 are as follows:

·Four Township fire companies responded to over 1,800 calls which is a little over 4 calls per day.

·The opening of the North Substation on Langhorne-Yardley.

·A new engine was put in service in the Langhorne-Middletown Fire Company.

·Penndel Fire Company has ordered a new rescue truck that will arrive in May 2010.

·Skyline joint training has been implemented.

·No serious firefighter injuries and no fire related fatalities in the Township.

Budgets & Audits

·As part of the SFDA contract the Association must submit budgets to the Township and also as part of the contract the Association is to be audited annually.That hasn't occurred since 2007 and asked if that will happen.

Mr. McMonagle inquired if the Township has received the budgets from each of the fire companies since 2007.Mr. Marte said he doesn't know about the other companies, but can speak for the Langhorne-Middletown Fire Company and the budget has been submitted to the Township Manager.Mr. Stepnoski advised that Penndel Fire Company has also dropped off their budget.

·Status of the Emergency Services Ad Hoc Committee.

Mr. Stepnoski stated that Mr. Marte is a member of this Committee.Mr. Marte said that Mr. Schramm, Chairperson of the Committee said nothing will occur until the Board makes a recommendation.

Mr. Kreiling asked if there is a need for the Ad Hoc Committee.Mr. McMonagle stated absolutely and the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked with certain items they were to complete and as any Ad Hoc Committee would work, there is a beginning where items are examined, there is an end where a report is completed.A final report has not been received from the Ad Hoc Committee.

Jim McFadden, Parkland Fire Company president disagreed with Mr. McMonagle as far as the need of an Ad Hoc Committee.The Township enacted a resolution for an Ad Hoc Committee, and as far as Mr. McFadden is concerned he doesn't see the need.Mr. McMonagle said of course Mr. McFadden would disagree with the need of a committee because they are examining the operation of the fire companies.The Board understands that the fire companies were resistant to the committee, but something had to be done about the apparatus funding.

Mr. McFadden said the Ad Hoc Committee overstepped their boundaries and Mr. McMonagle agreed with him.Mr. McMonagle said he doesn't believe that he stated they overstepped their boundaries.Mr. McMonagle said the last time they spoke, Mr. McFadden was demanding the apparatus fund spreadsheet which was stated by Mr. McFadden and Mr. Molle that it was falsified or that Mr. McMonagle had fudged the numbers.Mr. McFadden said he didn't say it was falsified by Mr. McMonagle.

Mr. Kreiling asked about distribution of the budgets from the various fire companies.Mr. McFadden advised that the budgets from the fire companies are supposed to Emergency Services Advisory Board (ESAB).The ESAB has been disbanded.

Mr. Marte asked if the Ad Hoc Committee is going to be continued that the Board provide them with some guidance and focus.

Mr. Gallagher said that particular committee met numerous times prior to a certain date in November and then it stopped meeting entirely and may have something to do with the results of what happened in November.As far as any reports from this committee, that was a previous Board that authorized that committee and set it up.The reports, to the best of Mr. Gallagher's knowledge, ever rendered to that board and he is not overly sure if this Board wants to keep that committee afloat.Mr. Gallagher asked for a consensus of the Board with respect to keeping the Ad Hoc Committee afloat.Mr. Leonhauser agreed with Mr. Gallagher and stated that there is no need for the Ad Hoc Committee at this time.

Mr. McMonagle said a lot of time and effort went into the committee by volunteers and to just dissolve it without getting a final report or any type of recommendation smacks more of politics than anything.Mr. McMonagle said that Ad Hoc Committee was a group of citizen volunteers and some of the best firefighting professionals in the Township to examine the operation of four different fire companies within the Township.Mr. Gallagher is saying he doesn't want to hear from them after they put a year of work in it.That smacks of politics and fulfilling a campaign promise.

Mr. Mallon deferred to the Chiefs to tell the Board if they believe the Ad Hoc Committee served a purpose.

Frank Farry, Chief Langhorne-Middletown Fire Company and Chairman of the SFDA Chiefs, said when they last met with the Township Manager in April or May of 2009 there was no mention by the Township's Chief Administrator of an Ad Hoc Committee being formed. There were no criticisms leveled toward the fire service from the Township Manager and then a committee was formed with no notice to the fire service or with no opportunity for the fire service to comment on it.

Mr. Farry also stated that the chiefs of the SFDA also attended the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee on top of all of the time they give to the community responding to emergencies and administering what is essentially a business operation within the community to serve the residents of the community.The member organizations would like to sit down with the Township and try and work out whatever needs to be worked out, whether it is the apparatus plan, obviously the budgeting process got south with how that is going to be handled moving forward.Hopefully the companies are going to be audited again.

Mr. Farry stated that there is a meeting of the SFDA chiefs to work on concepts for the apparatus plan tomorrow evening in an attempt to develop a plan to be able to come forward and meet with the Board or the Municipal Administrator and present solutions to the funding problem with the apparatus plan.That is the way it has worked in the past.If the Board feels that you need to appoint a committee between the Board and the SFDA that is within their purview.He hopes they wouldn't do that without first sitting down with the SFDA to see what the issues are.

Mr. McMonagle said the apparatus fund has been going toward bankruptcy for years and no resolution was ever put forth by any of the companies, moreover what was seen and experienced was a competition among the companies.There was no resolution coming from the Township fire companies and that is why the Ad Hoc Committee was formed specifically for the apparatus funding problem.

Mr. Farry said not one nickel has been spent out of the apparatus fund without three board members making the decision.Mr. McMonagle said that is understood.Mr. Farry said Mr. McMonagle has been sitting on the Board for 8 years making decisions about the apparatus fund.Mr. McMonagle said actually when Mr. Farry was working for the Township he was instrumental in putting the apparatus fund together and the Board of Supervisors didn't have that much hands on input.

Mr. Farry said the way the process worked in the past is the SFDA would periodically update the actual valuations of the apparatus within the plan.That valuation would be forwarded to the Finance Director who would forward it to the Township Manager who would provide it to the Board of Supervisors.The Board of Supervisors last took action on that plan short of making purchases on that plan last took action on the plan in 2005 when the plan was revised and approved by the Board 5-0.Before any apparatus purchase was made the apparatus plan was presented to the Supervisors and that fund was solvent.There was one year that there had to be an internal $100,000.00 loan made that was then paid back the next year and the fund remained solvent for 15 years.The apparatus plan that was displayed on the screen during the fall and the reason there was such a commotion is he has never seen that apparatus plan before.Whatever was done in the Township since Mr. Farry left in June 2008 was done internally by the Township.

Mr. Farry realizes the tax revenues are down but it has also been brought to his attention that the interest from the apparatus fund is now being skimmed out of the apparatus fund and has been done for two years to subsidize the general fund budget.That never happened in the past nor were the fire companies notified of that and perhaps that is part of the problem.Even if it is only $10,000; $15,000; or $20,000 it should be in the balance of the apparatus fund account.

Mr. McMonagle pointed out that the purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee was to resolve the problems with the funding of the apparatus.Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Farry what the state of the fund is now and Mr. Farry responded that he doesn't know because that information is not communicated.Mr. McMonagle said it is near bankruptcy and Mr. Farry doesn't know how a fund can be near bankruptcy when it has no liabilities.The fund has a balance that purchases are made out of, so having no liabilities how can it be in bankruptcy.

Mr. Farry requested that the Board provide the SFDA the opportunity to develop solutions on their own and come back to the Board, but what they need is cooperation from the Township in terms of providing SFDA information.He hopes that the cooperation would not have to come through filing an RTK request, but could contact the fire marshal or manager and get information.He would like an accounting for the apparatus fund and find out how it went from where it was two years ago to what was presented in the fall.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that information is on line as the past three year's budgets are there with everything in black and white.Mr. Farry advised that the Township has a fire apparatus plan file.Mr. Stepnoski said that is from that file.Mr. Farry said maybe the Board can have the administration meet with a subcommittee of SFDA to try and piece this back together to how we got to where we are now and then they will come forward with some recommendations.

Mr. Gallagher asked if the Finance Director and Manager were to meet with the individuals he is suggesting; how much time do you think it would take on the Township's side.Mr. Farry said when he brings together the documents he has and the Township's documents it would take approximately an hour with perhaps a second meeting to provide follow up documents.

Mr. Stepnoski said that this is the first time the request has come up and it can be done.Mr. McMonagle said Mr. Farry is reinventing the wheel.All they need to do is let the study commission finish its job.Mr. Farry said the study commission does not have any of the historical perspective.

Mr. Leonhauser does not believe that a committee between the Board and the fire companies is needed.He believes the Board can resolve any problems in an amicable way without having all of that red tape.Mr. Gallagher said based on conversations this evening it is a start toward working this out and getting it resolved if the chiefs and the SFDA are willing to sit down and work with the Finance Director and Township Manager and come up with the questions for the Board.

Mr. McMonagle said the Ad Hoc Committee didn't exist as a buffer but rather as an independent examination by citizen volunteers many of whom were very qualified to do so.Mr. Gallagher is suggesting pushing it under the rug and not seeing the final report of the committee.

Mr. Farry also requested an answer with regard to the interest that was transferred out of the apparatus fund to other funding.Mr. Gallagher said that is something that can take place between the SFDA, the Finance Director and the Township Manager.Mr. Farry advised that the County is going to be upgrading their radio system for communications that will affect not just fire but EMS and police as well.The upgrade is scheduled for 2011 with a radio costing about $4,000.00 in the current market place.The fire service operates about 65 radios across all of Middletown.A mobile radio that is vehicle mounted is $4,500.00 with 32 of those in the fire service.Previously there was fire tax money that actually funded the purchase which was a loan within the township to fund the radio purchases.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that this happened several years ago and that is why most Township employees have Nextels because the last time the County did this they dis-communicated everyone and it had to be patched back together.It seems to Mr. Stepnoski that since we know it is in the future, and the fire tax has been mentioned, it should be worked into the apparatus plan as it would basically be the cost of a truck.So if the companies can eek out a year of one truck, then it would be $400,000.00 available to pay for the radios.

Mr. Farry pointed out that eeking out one year of a truck would actually be not replacing a full truck as it has a 15 to 20 year lifespan.Mr. Stepnoski said the last truck that was sold had 15,000 miles on it.Mr. Farry also pointed out the SFDA meets with the Fire Marshal regularly whether it is to learn of the inspections he is doing, try to join training operations together so there is very open dialogue with him.

Mr. Farry said there were some concerns with the past storm and he realizes it was an extremely severe storm.The concern is when you hit the overnight hours and not having a plow truck available.There were fire trucks that were not able to get to a dwelling fire in Snowball Gate due to the road conditions and there wasn't a plow truck on staff in Middletown because the operators had been sent home.

Darrell Martin, Chief of Penndel Fire Company, explained the situation that took place with trying to get to the fire in Snowball Gate.Much heavy equipment had to be moved from the rescue vehicle that was stuck to the fire scene so there were slip and fall accidents and fortunately none of them suffered any major injuries. There was also a fire in Forsythia Gate earlier in the evening and the roads were not in good condition.

Mr. Stepnoski advised that the drivers of the snowplows were on duty for 15 hours and were released at 5:00 p.m. and anyone could be called at any time and they were scheduled to come back in at 3:00 a.m.

Mr. Gallagher suggested that going forward some sort of plan should be set up where a minimum number of people start later in a storm so they can cover while others are going to sleep.He also suggested having some sort of backup plan.

Mr. Stepnoski stated there is backup for the drivers and a meeting has been held to go over some of the issues that came up.The guys who can plow took trucks home so they were dispatched instantly with a truck.The reason they were called off was because the snow was coming down so heavy so that when the plow went through, it needed to be plowed again.

John Deigel, President William Penn Fire Company, stated that during the blizzard of 1996 there was a snowplow at every fire house, along with an ambulance and a police car at the Oxford Valley Station.Whenever there was an emergency the plow led the emergency vehicle to where they had to go.A discussion was held about the sale of the water & sewer departments and the loss of employees and the use of the trucks.

Mr. Farry thanked the Board for the opportunity for open dialogue with the Township and believes it is important to have the quarterly meetings in addition to meetings as stipulated such as the apparatus plan meeting that will be scheduled with the Manager and the Finance Director.

Mr. Stepnoski asked about the open records request that Mr. Farry spoke of.Mr. Farry asked whether an open records request had to be submitted or an email can be sent to the Manager requesting information on the apparatus plan or a this or a that.He has never had to file an open records request in the past and if that is going to be a new practice.

Jim McFadden once again went back to the issue of the document that was presented at a previous meeting by Mr. Stepnoski that was provided to him by Mr. McMonagle.

Mr. Gallagher suggested moving forward and building a working relationship between the SFDA and the Board.

Kevin Reed, Fairman Lane, Langhorne and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, said he is a disappointed member of the committee.He is disappointed because an open process was developed and because of past feelings the fire companies have had it was derailed.He is very disappointed in the fire company's reaction.They may not have received the information at the meetings, but were provided the information the next day and were given 30 days to provide comment.

The fire companies need to give up those past feelings if they are going to move forward.Mr. Reed believes the community has a responsibility to have a master plan for the fire companies to protect the community in the future.Mr. Reed has been a volunteer firefighter for 34 years in another town and he finds it appalling to see the kind of back and forth between the Board of Supervisors and the volunteer fire service.

Mr. Reed said when he ran a fire department he had a listing of all equipment that was owned by his department.When he asked for that information from the fire companies, they were not able to provide it.There seems to be a secretive screen with the fire companies and that is sad because they do good things.Mr. Reed was prepared to resign from the Ad Hoc Committee because of the past history SFDA has with the Township, ESAB and he is not sure whether they can get over.He has thought of ways to help them get over it.Mr. Reed has been a government employee for 29 years and told the Board they have a big task ahead of them to make relations better with the guys that volunteer.Mr. Reed wished the Board well and hopes that if the Ad Hoc Committee did anything that it will settle things down and everyone gets on the right track and to open up to the community.The community has a right to say what they would like to see in fire protection.

Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Reed if a final report will be forthcoming from the Ad Hoc Committee.Mr. Reed said the reason that he and Rich Schramm stopped where they were with the report was because of all of the rhetoric and to see what the new Board wants to do.He asked Mr. Schramm to compile what has gotten down so the Board can look it over and decide how they want to proceed.He will have Mr. Schramm forward the report to the Board.

Mr. Leonhauser stated that Mr. Reed had a good point in the fact that perhaps the past Board and the fire companies didn't get along.He feels confident that the present Board will be able to have an open discussion with the fire companies and solve any problems that exist.

Mr. Marte said he is thrilled about working and having open communication with the Township.Mr. Marte stated that Mr. McMonagle mentioned a final report from the Ad Hoc committee and he is on the Ad Hoc Committee and has attended all but one meeting and the only report of true substance was one that was done by a subcommittee, Rich Schramm and Kevin Reed.There isn't some magical report out there and through the life of the Ad Hoc Committee they never reached that point.Mr. Marte thanked the Board and the residents for being patient for the inclusion of this last minute item on the agenda.

Mr. Gallagher once again asked for a consensus of the Board with regard to the continuation of the Ad Hoc Committee.Mr. Leonhauser said he doesn't believe it is needed as there is open communication now and we should solve everything.Mr. McMonagle said if they don't get the final report, the Board would be throwing away all of the work they did.

ACTION:MR. GALLAGHER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. LEONHAUSER TO DISBAND THE EMERGENCY SERVICES AD HOC COMMITTEE.

Mr. Gallagher opened this issue to public comment.

Chuck Thompson, Levittown said the motion is moot because Mr. Reed has resigned and Mr. Schramm has submitted a resignation to Mr. Stepnoski so there is no one left on the committee.He understands from Mr. Schramm that there will be a report that will be for informative purposes for the Board's use.Mr. Thompson agreed with Mr. Reed and wished the Board luck.Mr. Gallagher said he is willing to look at anything that is submitted to him.

MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH MR. MCMONAGLE OPPOSED.

6.OTHER BUSINESS.

Mr. Leonhauser would like to motion to have Mr. Wendel of the Department of Public Works contact someone to have the backup generator repaired.Mr. Gallagher asked if there is a reason the generator hasn't been repaired.

Mr. Wendel said the reason is that the past several managers were not willing to spend $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 to get the generator repaired.This is the old generator from the old Police Department.Mr. Gallagher asked what the cost of a new generator would be.Mr. Wendel said he would look into the cost of a new generator.Mr. Gallagher would like to see proposals on both situations; one on repair and for a new generator.

Mr. Stepnoski said on the website and TV Channel a notification will be published stating that on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 a meeting will be held at the Lower Southampton Building concerning the replacement of the bridge by PennDOT on Route 213 over the Neshaminy Creek. There are also two culverts, one at Twin Oaks Park and one if Falls Township along Trenton Road that are proposed to be replaced by PennDOT.In addition, notice has been received that the Route 1 bypass over Maple Avenue is another project that PennDOT is going to be working on.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. Stepnoski if the Township has leases for the Tower One Cell Towers.Mr. Stepnoski said the Township definitely has leases for the first occupant on each of those sites.Mr. Gallagher requested that going forward he would like to see the residents notified of the proposal of cell towers.He would also like Mr. Pizzo to look into the legality of the cell tower at the North Substation, by looking in the Pops Styers will.Mr. McMonagle suggested that the Township has a legal opinion on this issue from the former solicitor.Mr. Pizzo will check with Mr. Savona for that information.

7.OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

Martin Duffy, Parkview Avenue, appreciated the job the DPW employees did during the last snowstorm.Mr. Gallagher also thanked the DPW employees for the job they did because there was no place to go with the snow.

Mr. Stepnoski pointed out that he sent emails to Mr. Wendel, Mr. McGuire and Director McGinty regarding two ordinances the Township has in place regarding snow storms.One is within an hour beginning of snowfall and 12 hours after a snowfall, cars are not permitted and can be ticketed and towed when there is an emergency on the street.Another ordinance is in place that states you are not permitted to deposit snow on a public street from a private property.

Mr. Gallagher directed Mr. Stepnoski to look into continuing the practice of issuing tickets during a state of emergency during a snowstorm.

Mr. Wendel said he and his superintendent are allowed to write tickets, but both of them drive snowplows.Mr. Gallagher suggested that someone in management be sent out to write tickets.

Robert McCarney, 47 Harvest Road, Levittown, said the issue is the fact that the DPW building does not have a generator.

Yvonne Laycock, Levittown requested an update on the hiring of a Chief of Police.

Mr. Gallagher responded that there was an announcement at the last meeting that the Township Manager was requested to proceed with the wording for the advertisement for a Chief of Police.

Donna Wert, Levittown, said during the past storm it was very hard for the police and fire fighters due to the road conditions.The DPW employees need to be more available during snowstorms.

Mike Fields, 97 Styer Lane, Langhorne went into great detail concerning the problems he is having on the farm with the deteriorating structures.

Mr. Gallagher asked how much money is available in the trust fund that Pops Styers left.Mr. Stepnoski explained that those funds are controlled by the Heritage Conservancy.

Mr. Gallagher said the Township is considering reinstating the Styer Farm Committee and the Middletown Country Club Committee and suggested to those who may still be watching the meeting to go to the Township website and download an application for the Boards and Commissions and forward to the Manager's office.

Mr. Fields also listed an asbestos problem at his home and a dam issue on the property.Mr. Stepnoski advised that the dam issue has been given to the Township Engineer to review.With regard to the asbestos, Mr. Fields family was living in a different house and chose to move to the older house. Mr. Fields feels that the Township should come out and assess the conditions of all of the building on the farm.

Mr. Kreiling asked Mr. Fields if he has a list of things that need fixed at the farm.Mr. Fields stated that Debby Lamanna, Director of Parks & Recreation has a list.

Kevin Wagner, 1909 S. Third Street, Langhorne suggested the Township look into subcontractors for any future snowstorms.

Mr. Gallagher requested that the MAA request be put on the March 1, 2010 agenda and that Ms. Lamanna be present.

8.ADJOURNMENT.

ACTION:MR KREILING MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. MALLON TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT 11:00 P.M.MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 (MR. MCMONAGLE LEFT THE MEETING PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.)