Well, August is almost over and I have not posted anything. I've stopped going to meetings and that limits my reportage. But I got some useful things done on the farm and had time to relax and ponder about the Big Things that I can't do much about.
Rather than stew about them, I'll offer some rambling thoughts about three big national issues.
CIA Interrogations : The Administration has decided to re-open and re-investigate the CIA interrogations of terrorists (detainees) captured early in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. The basic facts are that this subject was investigated extensively four years ago, one person was found guilty of exceeding the guidelines; the DOJ decided there was no cause to prosecute any others. More importantly, there were very humane guidelines in place and being followed and the results of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were very effective in preventing further attacks on the US and our allies as well as in penetrating enemy networks in Iraq and elsewhere.
Overall, I think the CIA, like the military, operated effectively under some of the most damage-limiting guidelines ever employed in warfare. I have trouble understanding the "outrage" of anyone who is offended by interrogators "blowing cigar smoke" or dribbling a little water (only a few cases of this) in the faces of those who have tried to blow up our buildings and troops. Please! Let's have a little perspective; compare this to the interrogation techniques employed against Americans by the North Koreans in the 1950's, the Vietnamese in the 60's and early 70's, or the Taliban and Al Qaeda more recently.
Most importantly, this politicized investigation can easily become a major deterrent to the ability of our front-line intelligence and military troops to protect the nation quickly and effectively. Why do this damage to our national security? As near as I can tell, the prime purpose is to deflect the public view from the failings of the Administration's Health Care Reform proposals.
Health Care Reform : We can improve health care; but first we need a much more open discussion of the real problems and the possible solutions. While there are many variations of the Democrat - Administration reform proposals being worked on, only HR 3200 is available for public view. It's gotten a lot of attention and there has already been considerable sliding back and forth about key details like the "Public Option", medicare cuts, cost savings, comparative effectiveness reviews, forced end-of life counseling, etc.. Cutting through the confusion reveals an Administration objective to cram down a poorly considered amalgam of health and social issues in legislation that would enact a political agenda and not improve our health care.
We are not getting that key discussion of problems and solutions. Instead, we are being pushed to a Government-Controlled solution rather than a Patient/Consumer Controlled solution without the requisite analysis of the problems with the current system or of the solution options.
Consider just one aspect of the "Problem" - the claimed 46-47 million uninsured ( that's about 15% of our population) according to Census Bureau surveys . How real is this problem? For starters, read KeithHennessey's analysis, this study in The American , and this WSJ article. You might be surprised by what these and other government reports say. Did you know that only about half of that number are uninsured for a year, rather than a month or less? Or that only 16% are uninsured for two years? In other words, only about 23 million people (or 7.5%) are uninsured for 1 year and only 7.5 million people uninsured for two years (about 2.5% of the population). The studies also cut the numbers in terms of who is uninsured rather than how long they are uninsured, showing that the "47 million" is composed of a large number of non-citizens and of people really eligible for Medicare or SCHIP. Removing those people, cuts the number of uninsured in half; of the remainder, many are financially well-off families and young adults who opt not to buy insurance. The result is about 10 million or fewer people ( about 3%)who might need financial help.
That's still a lot of people; but can't we find a tailored solution to the problems of 3% of the population without changing the entire health care system for 100% of us ? Do we really need to adversely impact 97% of us with "Obamacare" to help 3%? And would the government plan really help that 3% anyways? Without knowing who is uninsured for how long and for what reasons, one cannot solve the problem intelligently.
Instead of a reasoned or tailored solution, we are offered a "moral imperative" to enact extensive government controls over our health care options and choices. We are told this reform is needed to "control costs" because Medicare is "financially unsustainable" - really, President Obama made both these points in a single recent speech. Question - If Medicare has an unsustainable cost problem, how does expanding it to a full national government -run system make cost controls easier to attain? Why not prove these new controls first in Medicare as it is?
The answer is obvious. the only ways to bring costs and revenue into balance is to force people who don't need medical care (young,healthy) to pay for people who do (older, ill) and to ration care to those who need it most based on some overall "societal benefit" formula. Enter Comparative Effectiveness Review committees and End-of-Life counseling; or if you prefer "death panels". Although those words never appear in the legislation , the result is implicit in the government approach to rationing care.
Tea Parties and Sarah Palin : Can't cite "death panels" without giving credit to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks who have been giving their Congress folks a lot of citizen feedback. In my blog post about the local 4th of July Tea Party, I noted how good it was to see citizens aroused and speaking against more government intrusion in our lives. I also said of Palin's announced resignation as Alaska Governor that "I believe she is choosing to abandon "politics as usual" to pursue an independent path to break the current political bureaucracy's hold on America." I think it is pretty clear now that she is doing that with a rapidly growing online audience and Facebook followers. She has the rare talent of seeing through intellectual smokescreens, getting to the heart of the matter, and expressing it a short grabby phrase. Her insights and statements appeal to us because they are honest, accurate assessments that reflect the American spirit of independence and responsibility for our lives and choices. As one liberal blogger put it, "Sarah Palin Rope-a-Doped All-Too-Many Liberals "on this issue and put the Democrats on the defensive.
The Tea Parties are making that spirit known to the Congress and the country. I believe and hope that the impact is as strong as it appears. If so, the destructive policies of this Administration on health and energy will be thwarted. None of us feel that things are perfect in either area. Both areas need considerable reform and policy changes.
But first, we need a full discussion of the real problems and potential solutions. Then we can compare solutions and blend the best ideas into good policy. As an example, how many folks are aware of HR 2520, proposed by Rep. Ryan (R), or HR 3218 by Rep. Shadegg (R). These bills lay out health care reforms based on patient-control, improved access to affordable insurance by removing government regulations, and tort limits on frivolous litigation that increases expenses and causes undue defensive medical tests and procedures. There is a lot to discuss; but Congress needs to understand we want that discussion. The Tea Party troops are making that clear and that is a reason for optimism about the future.
I may not be able to do much about these issues personally, but I have a lot of faith in what we can do as citizens and as a nation.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Jessup News Post - July 2009
Township Meeting was held at 7:30 PM on 1 July.
Bids were opened for purchase of 1000 yards of cinders. The two bids were discussed and the higher bid, by Keefer Trucking, was selected over the bid by Brown Farm. The selection was made due to the ability of Keefer to deliver tonnage more rapidly with price certainty since it's bid was firm while the other bid had a clause allowing unknown price increases based on fuel costs.
The issue of natural gas pipelines and seismic testing along township roads was discussed again because a gas company had informed the town that it planned to do seismic testing along a town road. It was decided to inform a concerned resident on that road of the planned activity. The town officials hope to meet with a Cabot representative soon to discuss Cabot's plans; Cabot is expected to begin activity here in the Fall. The roadmaster again voiced opposition to pipelines along road right of ways; but that issue may be raised again.
The township will explore leasing its property for gas exploration.
The township met with the NTC to resolve the issue of payments for composting equipment. About half the NTC towns are using the equipment and half are not. We are not, but are still liable for paying our share of costs. It was decided to reimburse the NTC for past costs ( or dues) of about $470; but to stipulate that no further costs/dues would be paid and that the equipment should be used by those that want it.
An opportunity to buy a used JD544 loader was discussed. The loader would cost $7000 and about another $10,000 for repairs. It's value would be substantially higher once fixed and the costs might be offset partially by sale of the existing older loader. A motion was passed to purchase the JD544 loader and to advertise the old loader for sale.
The next township meeting will be August 5 at 7:30PM. The next NTC meeting will be held August 20 at 7 PM in Middletown.
The county gas task force meeting is scheduled for 9:30AM Thursday, 23July. It is held in the street level conference room of the County Office Building; it often overflows into the Economic Development Board meeting at 10AM in the lower level conference room.
I have another meeting that morning and may not attend; so I'll post the July News now.
Playing Politics with State Police Services
My attention was caught by this rather disturbing article last week : Surcharge looming for police coverage - Susquehanna Independent Weekender, which stated "Under House Bill 1500, municipalities that rely solely on state police for its law enforcement would be charged based on its population. During the first year in effect, the fee would be $52 per person. It would rise to $104 per person the second year, and $156 each year after that."
For a 750 person township, the annual tab starts at $39,000 rising to $117,000 in three years. But why do this? There is a very good case that 2nd class townships already pay enough taxes for the level of State Police services needed and actually received. I have seen very few troopers drive past my farm in the last 10 years -- maybe one every 2-3 years on average. The last time was a night when they were looking for some fugitives from a Vestal area robbery who had fled down Route 267.
So, if this bill is not needed to pay for excessive street patrolling, why is it being considered?
You can read House Bill 1500(pdf) here. It passed the State Government Committee on 1 July 2009 with 13 Democrat votes in favor and all 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against. It is now in the Rules Committee.
OK, so we know it is a strongly Democrat partisan bill. And we know that the House just passed a budget bill that spends far more than the House Republicans proposed or than the Senate passed in their SB 850.
Governor Rendell and the Democrats want to increase spending in the face of a severe revenue shortfall. If you won't cut spending, then you have to raise taxes directly or indirectly by forcing others (counties and towns) to pay for mandated services that can reduce state funding obligations.
This makes HB 1500 look like a bargaining chip for an upcoming House - Senate budget conference that will be needed to get a consolidated budget bill passed and signed. I believe that is a key reason for this bill being pushed now by the Democrats. But not the only reason.
A town can avoid the HB 1500 mandated fees by having a 24/7 full time police force or joining in a regional police force. A town can reduce the fee to one third the full charge by having a part time police force or participating in a regional one. Could this bill be another State Government push to force townships to consolidate services - whether needed or not?
Who gets the money collected from townships by HB 1500?
Well, the first $20,000,000 goes to a special account to fund "additional" State Police cadet classes. That's interesting. I wonder do they think they will need more classes and State Police to provide the same services as now and that towns will opt to pay the fees rather than join regional police forces? Or do they just hope that there will be enough up front money for a while to cover some budget reductions in normal funding for those classes?
After that $20 Million set aside, the rest is split 90% to the Motor License Fund and 10% to DCED. DCED is required to use its funds for "assisting and encouraging municipalities to enter into cooperative arrangements to provide police services".
So, the money follows the political goal of consolidating townships, or their services, into regional arrangements. All accomplished by State mandates that withdraw money from townships and offer to return a portion if they follow the State's political guidance. Note that the State can not force township consolidation without modification of the constitution; but the same result can approached by these means.
How likely is this bill to pass and how likely is "consolidation" to be forced on townships?
I do not have even a cloudy magic ball to foretell political events. But I suspect HB 1500 will go nowhere beyond being a pawn in the big budget battle. Remember that it passed committee with 100% Republican opposition and with 1 Democrat joining the Republicans. The Democrats may control the House, but not the Senate.
As for "consolidation", I think there will be continued pressure as long as the Democrats have the Governorship and at least one legislative body. I also think it can be successfully resisted.
Many township officials came back from the April annual PSATS meeting in Harrisburg concerned about a strongly pro-consolidation speech given by the Acting Secretary of DCED. Some took his speech as threatening consolidation. The resultant political backlash caused Gov. Rendell to place a full page "Message" in the July edition of PSATS Township News proclaiming he has "no intention of calling for the merger, consolidation, or elimination of townships."
Of course, Gov. Rendell also recognized the "efficiency of shared services and cooperation, but that should be encouraged, rather than mandated." That is a good policy statement. The key issue is making sure that the State's encouragement is not coupled to unfunded service mandates or reductions.
HB 1500 crosses that line - just like the DCED Acting Secretary's consolidation speech did. And just like that speech, voter and township pressure can keep the State "consolidators" at bay. We just need to keep fighting back and making our opinions known to our representatives.
For a 750 person township, the annual tab starts at $39,000 rising to $117,000 in three years. But why do this? There is a very good case that 2nd class townships already pay enough taxes for the level of State Police services needed and actually received. I have seen very few troopers drive past my farm in the last 10 years -- maybe one every 2-3 years on average. The last time was a night when they were looking for some fugitives from a Vestal area robbery who had fled down Route 267.
So, if this bill is not needed to pay for excessive street patrolling, why is it being considered?
You can read House Bill 1500(pdf) here. It passed the State Government Committee on 1 July 2009 with 13 Democrat votes in favor and all 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against. It is now in the Rules Committee.
OK, so we know it is a strongly Democrat partisan bill. And we know that the House just passed a budget bill that spends far more than the House Republicans proposed or than the Senate passed in their SB 850.
Governor Rendell and the Democrats want to increase spending in the face of a severe revenue shortfall. If you won't cut spending, then you have to raise taxes directly or indirectly by forcing others (counties and towns) to pay for mandated services that can reduce state funding obligations.
This makes HB 1500 look like a bargaining chip for an upcoming House - Senate budget conference that will be needed to get a consolidated budget bill passed and signed. I believe that is a key reason for this bill being pushed now by the Democrats. But not the only reason.
A town can avoid the HB 1500 mandated fees by having a 24/7 full time police force or joining in a regional police force. A town can reduce the fee to one third the full charge by having a part time police force or participating in a regional one. Could this bill be another State Government push to force townships to consolidate services - whether needed or not?
Who gets the money collected from townships by HB 1500?
Well, the first $20,000,000 goes to a special account to fund "additional" State Police cadet classes. That's interesting. I wonder do they think they will need more classes and State Police to provide the same services as now and that towns will opt to pay the fees rather than join regional police forces? Or do they just hope that there will be enough up front money for a while to cover some budget reductions in normal funding for those classes?
After that $20 Million set aside, the rest is split 90% to the Motor License Fund and 10% to DCED. DCED is required to use its funds for "assisting and encouraging municipalities to enter into cooperative arrangements to provide police services".
So, the money follows the political goal of consolidating townships, or their services, into regional arrangements. All accomplished by State mandates that withdraw money from townships and offer to return a portion if they follow the State's political guidance. Note that the State can not force township consolidation without modification of the constitution; but the same result can approached by these means.
How likely is this bill to pass and how likely is "consolidation" to be forced on townships?
I do not have even a cloudy magic ball to foretell political events. But I suspect HB 1500 will go nowhere beyond being a pawn in the big budget battle. Remember that it passed committee with 100% Republican opposition and with 1 Democrat joining the Republicans. The Democrats may control the House, but not the Senate.
As for "consolidation", I think there will be continued pressure as long as the Democrats have the Governorship and at least one legislative body. I also think it can be successfully resisted.
Many township officials came back from the April annual PSATS meeting in Harrisburg concerned about a strongly pro-consolidation speech given by the Acting Secretary of DCED. Some took his speech as threatening consolidation. The resultant political backlash caused Gov. Rendell to place a full page "Message" in the July edition of PSATS Township News proclaiming he has "no intention of calling for the merger, consolidation, or elimination of townships."
Of course, Gov. Rendell also recognized the "efficiency of shared services and cooperation, but that should be encouraged, rather than mandated." That is a good policy statement. The key issue is making sure that the State's encouragement is not coupled to unfunded service mandates or reductions.
HB 1500 crosses that line - just like the DCED Acting Secretary's consolidation speech did. And just like that speech, voter and township pressure can keep the State "consolidators" at bay. We just need to keep fighting back and making our opinions known to our representatives.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
A Tea Party for The Nation's Birthday
This was a great Fourth of July!
The sun was shining and the rain was not falling. We were able to get our horses out for an hour of trail riding along green pathways and mountain vistas.
We went to the first - and thus far, only - Tea Party in Susquehanna County. It was quite an event and we have the photos that show it. Any time you get more people to show up in a field than there are hay bales, it's a success.
I counted over a hundred folks and that's a lot for us. Admittedly, some of us left early - it may be a holiday, but the animals still need to be fed.
The talks at the Tea Party were on target, expressing our feelings about a government that has abandoned those who work hard and save for those who expect a bailout for not working or saving. We had adults discussing that; we had children talking about history and work as the key to success in America. We had some good posters.
None of us want to pass a huge debt on to our children and grandchildren. We want the government to stop the insanity of going deeper into debt to "fix" the economic problems caused by prior unconscionable debt and loan policies.
The "party" location in South Montrose is notable itself. It is a field that was converted into a memorial by the Crisman family for their son, Daniel, who died in the 9/11 attack and then extended for all those who lost their lives in that attack. Their names are engraved on stone tablets in a semi-circle around the area in which the speakers addressed us.
We are rural Americans. We remember the sacrifices that were made and the families that still bear the burdens. Not just our neighbors; but throughout America. We are disappointed in the politicians and leaders who don't share our faith in ourselves to meet the future with our own industry, wisdom , and patriotism.
Some speakers called for leaders, who believe in us, to come forward and identify themselves; feeling that there were no such leaders and we need to find new ones. I agree that there are few, but not none. We need to find each other.
That brings me to my final action this 4th of July. After reading Governor Palin's resignation speech several times at SarahPAC (also on video here ), I have contributed to her PAC and the Alaska Trust Fund that pays her personal legal bills from baseless attacks. Regardless of what some prominent public commentators may say, I believe that she is not running from the fight or abandoning a political career. I believe she is choosing to abandon "politics as usual" to pursue an independent path to break the current political bureaucracy's hold on America.
I hope to see more of her on the political scene as a strong independent voice for bringing us back to the America that we "Tea Party" folks want. Her goals for America are straightforward and match mine : Free Enterprise; Smaller Government; Strong National Security; and Energy Independence. I believe these are the prime priorities for our future.
It's been a great 4th of July. Good weather; good horses; good people seeking a way ahead for America; and a real "Stand-Up" leader making a hard choice for our sake.
The sun was shining and the rain was not falling. We were able to get our horses out for an hour of trail riding along green pathways and mountain vistas.
We went to the first - and thus far, only - Tea Party in Susquehanna County. It was quite an event and we have the photos that show it. Any time you get more people to show up in a field than there are hay bales, it's a success.
I counted over a hundred folks and that's a lot for us. Admittedly, some of us left early - it may be a holiday, but the animals still need to be fed.
The talks at the Tea Party were on target, expressing our feelings about a government that has abandoned those who work hard and save for those who expect a bailout for not working or saving. We had adults discussing that; we had children talking about history and work as the key to success in America. We had some good posters.
None of us want to pass a huge debt on to our children and grandchildren. We want the government to stop the insanity of going deeper into debt to "fix" the economic problems caused by prior unconscionable debt and loan policies.
The "party" location in South Montrose is notable itself. It is a field that was converted into a memorial by the Crisman family for their son, Daniel, who died in the 9/11 attack and then extended for all those who lost their lives in that attack. Their names are engraved on stone tablets in a semi-circle around the area in which the speakers addressed us.
We are rural Americans. We remember the sacrifices that were made and the families that still bear the burdens. Not just our neighbors; but throughout America. We are disappointed in the politicians and leaders who don't share our faith in ourselves to meet the future with our own industry, wisdom , and patriotism.
Some speakers called for leaders, who believe in us, to come forward and identify themselves; feeling that there were no such leaders and we need to find new ones. I agree that there are few, but not none. We need to find each other.
That brings me to my final action this 4th of July. After reading Governor Palin's resignation speech several times at SarahPAC (also on video here ), I have contributed to her PAC and the Alaska Trust Fund that pays her personal legal bills from baseless attacks. Regardless of what some prominent public commentators may say, I believe that she is not running from the fight or abandoning a political career. I believe she is choosing to abandon "politics as usual" to pursue an independent path to break the current political bureaucracy's hold on America.
I hope to see more of her on the political scene as a strong independent voice for bringing us back to the America that we "Tea Party" folks want. Her goals for America are straightforward and match mine : Free Enterprise; Smaller Government; Strong National Security; and Energy Independence. I believe these are the prime priorities for our future.
It's been a great 4th of July. Good weather; good horses; good people seeking a way ahead for America; and a real "Stand-Up" leader making a hard choice for our sake.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Jessup News Post - June 2009
Township Meeting :
The meeting was scheduled for 7 PM on 3June 2009. The meeting times will be reset to the old start time of 7:30 PM beginning in July.
The stone crushing operation was a success with a large amount of stone crushed in 6 days. The resulting modified and 3A tonnage was obtained at considerable savings and is being used for the annual road maintenance. Personnel changes were made to improve the road crews.
Flags have been placed at veterans' graves by a volunteer.
A citizen expressed concern about gas companies doing seismic surveys and laying pipelines along township road rights of way. Supervisors stated that no permits have been requested or granted. They do not plan to permit any pipelines along roads; but expect to consider pipelines that cross roads from one leased tract to another. They stated that companies do not ask them about seismic surveys; they just do them.
The next township meeting will be Wednesday,1 July, at 7:30 PM.
NTC Meeting :
Jessup hosted the first (and perhaps last) quarterly NTC meeting on Thursday, 18June, at 7 PM. The meeting was brief ending with an agreement to meet again in two months.
Bill Stewart introduced 3 agenda items.
First was a discussion of DCED's request for an audit of the three year planning and zoning grant funds, covering July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007. The requested audit is a "Yellow Book" audit which requires special credentials, not possessed by most auditors. Mr. Brian Kelly was retained to do the audit at an estimated $2500. Mr. Kelly will also arrange for an extension of the audit deadline from 30 June to end July 2009. A vote was passed to do so. Interestingly, the treasurer's report showed a recent bill paid against that account for services by Mr Helfrich.
Second was a discussion of a MOA with Montrose Boro and their bill for the use of land under the NTC metal equipment building on their land. The building houses composting equipment, used by some of the NTC towns. It was agreed to have a separate meeting of the "composters" to decide on the MOA and bill ( about $350 for usage and legal fees). That meeting will also address the allocation of charges for compost equipment maintenance.
Third was a mention of the PSATS award given to the NTC for their efforts to do multi-municipal planning and zoning. Silver Lake agreed to hold and display the award.
With the formal business over, a citizen asked about the status of zoning. Bill Stewart said some were still considering it. Township representatives confirmed that Apolacon, Franklin, Jessup, Liberty, Middletown, and Silver Lake were not going to zone. No township, of the remaining six, stated that they intended to zone. It was noted at the March meeting that the original multi-municipal inter-governmental cooperation agreement, was never signed by all and, hence, the resulting draft ordinance could only be used as the basis for individual zoning ordinances , presumably, after review and adoption by the individual township planning commissions.
At Bill Stewart's request, it was agreed to have the next meeting at Middletown on 20 August at 7 PM to allow for discussion of the DCED audit. It was stated that meetings might be held or not held in future on the planned schedule and that interested people could find out by viewing the NTC website or asking their township office. Alternatively, the County Planning Office could be called to find the time and place of future meetings.
County Gas Task Force Meeting :
The meeting was scheduled for 9:30 AM, Thursday 25 June, prior to the Economic Development committee meeting at 10AM. It began late and continued into the subsequent meeting. The meeting did not add much more information than presented last month. The Bradford Progress Authority is trying to induce companies to come here for a company-to-company "Expo" to get better exchange of gas company needs and local company capabilities. This may occur by the Fall. Another "Expo" may be held next year to address workforce needs.
Joann Kowalski noted that a PSU study indicates that a single well generates the equivalent of about 11.5 jobs for one year. The required job skills are about 25% College level and 75% High School level. Reference information can be found at www.pct.edu.msetc/.
I asked in anyone would be interested in having gas well and pipeline locations easily available on a map. Many seemed interested. I suggested to the group and to Commissioner Allen that the county could provide that capability at no cost to viewers and at no cost or low cost to the county.
At no cost, simply publish on the county website an Internet reference to existing websites; and at low cost, extend a current Google Map Application, which shows permitted and production wells and major pipelines, to provide more information such as access roads and gathering pipelines. The extensions can be added by getting GPS locations from the gas companies. A full discussion of the County Gas Map Proposal is available in my 23 June blog post.
The meeting was scheduled for 7 PM on 3June 2009. The meeting times will be reset to the old start time of 7:30 PM beginning in July.
The stone crushing operation was a success with a large amount of stone crushed in 6 days. The resulting modified and 3A tonnage was obtained at considerable savings and is being used for the annual road maintenance. Personnel changes were made to improve the road crews.
Flags have been placed at veterans' graves by a volunteer.
A citizen expressed concern about gas companies doing seismic surveys and laying pipelines along township road rights of way. Supervisors stated that no permits have been requested or granted. They do not plan to permit any pipelines along roads; but expect to consider pipelines that cross roads from one leased tract to another. They stated that companies do not ask them about seismic surveys; they just do them.
The next township meeting will be Wednesday,1 July, at 7:30 PM.
NTC Meeting :
Jessup hosted the first (and perhaps last) quarterly NTC meeting on Thursday, 18June, at 7 PM. The meeting was brief ending with an agreement to meet again in two months.
Bill Stewart introduced 3 agenda items.
First was a discussion of DCED's request for an audit of the three year planning and zoning grant funds, covering July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007. The requested audit is a "Yellow Book" audit which requires special credentials, not possessed by most auditors. Mr. Brian Kelly was retained to do the audit at an estimated $2500. Mr. Kelly will also arrange for an extension of the audit deadline from 30 June to end July 2009. A vote was passed to do so. Interestingly, the treasurer's report showed a recent bill paid against that account for services by Mr Helfrich.
Second was a discussion of a MOA with Montrose Boro and their bill for the use of land under the NTC metal equipment building on their land. The building houses composting equipment, used by some of the NTC towns. It was agreed to have a separate meeting of the "composters" to decide on the MOA and bill ( about $350 for usage and legal fees). That meeting will also address the allocation of charges for compost equipment maintenance.
Third was a mention of the PSATS award given to the NTC for their efforts to do multi-municipal planning and zoning. Silver Lake agreed to hold and display the award.
With the formal business over, a citizen asked about the status of zoning. Bill Stewart said some were still considering it. Township representatives confirmed that Apolacon, Franklin, Jessup, Liberty, Middletown, and Silver Lake were not going to zone. No township, of the remaining six, stated that they intended to zone. It was noted at the March meeting that the original multi-municipal inter-governmental cooperation agreement, was never signed by all and, hence, the resulting draft ordinance could only be used as the basis for individual zoning ordinances , presumably, after review and adoption by the individual township planning commissions.
At Bill Stewart's request, it was agreed to have the next meeting at Middletown on 20 August at 7 PM to allow for discussion of the DCED audit. It was stated that meetings might be held or not held in future on the planned schedule and that interested people could find out by viewing the NTC website or asking their township office. Alternatively, the County Planning Office could be called to find the time and place of future meetings.
County Gas Task Force Meeting :
The meeting was scheduled for 9:30 AM, Thursday 25 June, prior to the Economic Development committee meeting at 10AM. It began late and continued into the subsequent meeting. The meeting did not add much more information than presented last month. The Bradford Progress Authority is trying to induce companies to come here for a company-to-company "Expo" to get better exchange of gas company needs and local company capabilities. This may occur by the Fall. Another "Expo" may be held next year to address workforce needs.
Joann Kowalski noted that a PSU study indicates that a single well generates the equivalent of about 11.5 jobs for one year. The required job skills are about 25% College level and 75% High School level. Reference information can be found at www.pct.edu.msetc/.
I asked in anyone would be interested in having gas well and pipeline locations easily available on a map. Many seemed interested. I suggested to the group and to Commissioner Allen that the county could provide that capability at no cost to viewers and at no cost or low cost to the county.
At no cost, simply publish on the county website an Internet reference to existing websites; and at low cost, extend a current Google Map Application, which shows permitted and production wells and major pipelines, to provide more information such as access roads and gathering pipelines. The extensions can be added by getting GPS locations from the gas companies. A full discussion of the County Gas Map Proposal is available in my 23 June blog post.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
County Gas Map Proposal
My June 1 post, "Mapping County Gas Data", asked a simple question : why can't we use Google Maps to create an adequate county gas data GIS capability quickly and inexpensively?
The question remains unanswered; but, maybe I wasn't very clear about what constitutes quick, doable and adequate.
So, I'll explain more and demonstrate some features of a proposed capability that can be obtained at No Cost to Low Cost to the county. It also will allow citizens and county agencies to access accurate map based information on permitted and producing gas wells, pipelines, and other data at no cost.
Really - "No Cost" ?? "Low Cost" ?? Well, Yes, really !
But it does depend on what we demand in terms of accuracy, currency and completeness, and ownership of the data. I'll discuss these items later; first, here is the No-Low Cost proposal.
No cost is simple. Use what already exists and is widely available on the Internet. Low cost means augmenting an existing capability with more data. Both capability levels are based on use of a Google Map Application with all the built-in features of Google maps provided free by Google, including tutorials on how to add features to one's own map application.
There is an existing application developed by a self-proclaimed technology geek who enjoys real-time mapping applications. You can visit his website at Susquehanna County - Gas Exploration Maps to examine different features and map scales. His maps cover Susquehanna County and several adjacent counties in PA and NY. They provide data on permitted and producing wells, major pipelines and compression stations. He updates them monthly or semi-monthly. They are reasonably complete and accurate.
Simply using this application is the No Cost option. The county should publicise it on a county website so people would know where to find it.
For the Low Cost option, the county could deal with this individual to get more information in his data base or to be allowed to maintain a comparable version of his application which the county would update and extend. An obvious extension would be to add small well gathering pipelines and well access roads based on data from the gas companies. If this data were provided in simple GPS coordinates, it would be easy to include in the Google map application.
There you have it - a basic Gas Data Map capability at No to Low Cost with easy Internet access.
Let's demonstrate the "No Cost" option by some Google Map screen shots, starting with this one, County Gas Map 1, that show the county and gas industry information. The Blue east-west line is the Tennessee Gas Pipeline; red balloons are the locations of permitted gas wells; green balloons locate producing well locations; newly permitted pipelines are shown as blue flags; other icons locate other gas activities.
The second screen shot, County Gas Map 2, zooms to a smaller scale map to show the wells in relation to local roads. We can reduce the scale more and get closer by sliding the Google map scale indicator in the + direction. At this scale we can see a red triangle that depicts the location of a gas compression station.
Clicking the mouse on any symbol, e.g.. a green balloon, causes an info bubble to pop-up with descriptive information on well ID, production or other data.The pop-up for the green balloon directly above the red triangle states it is the Teel 5 well by Cabot, facility ID 700047, the first production well in NE PA. The pop-up bubble for the balloon to the right of it identifies it as Black 2H well by Cabot, Facility ID 706268, which produced 8.3Mmcf/d with a 4 stage frac on 3-3-09.
The information inside an information bubble is whatever the map developer wants to put there. In addition, each bubble has a Google feature that allows you to enter your current location and get a route map and driving directions from your location to the well (bubble)location. Since this is a Google Map application, all the Google map features are available. We could shift from the standard map format, shown above, to one that overlays the data on a terrain map or on satellite imagery. Of course, the satellite imagery would only show features present when the image was taken, such as trees, fields, ponds, and buildings.
So, now lets discuss those mapping performance terms and what they imply for costs to enhance the existing gas data map application.
Accuracy means how precisely the gas location data is measured and plotted on the map. If we demand survey level accuracy, the map capability will be costly and take a while to create. If we can live with accuracy equal to a standard GPS - based automobile or handheld navigation system, we can have a capability fast and at no cost to low cost. I believe that level of accuracy is adequate.
Currency means how timely the plotted data is; for example, if a new well permit is issued, do we want it to be plotted and the map updated within a day? or a week? or would a month be timely enough? Completeness means how much new data is captured and plotted on a timely basis; must it be 100% or is 80-90% enough? Since we have nothing now, I suggest that getting "most" data updated on the map one or twice a month is adequate.
Going from "most" to all or almost all takes us from No to Low Cost or more; going from once or twice a month to daily has the same effect.
Ownership of the data means who has control of the data base and the mapping application. If we demand that the county own it all, it will cost money and employee time. If we are willing to use a product owned and maintained by a third party, then our cost is none to low, depending on what we require of the third party in terms of currency, completeness and assured accessibility to the map application.
Bottom Line - I propose that the county use the above existing application "as is" for an immediate no cost capability. Publicize this on a county website for citizen access.
To gain more capability, define what additional information is needed and conduct two negotiations. First, negotiate with the application developer to add more information in a timely fashion either by him or by a partnering arrangement with the county, possibly by maintaining a county version. Second, negotiate with the gas companies to get timely access road and pipeline data in a format for easy entry into the map application.
Update - I should also reference this other primary source of information on Gas Wells in Susquehanna County PA. The main website is at RLSTORE.COM . It has considerable data on current well activity and maps of well sites. Although the maps lack the scaling and manipulation features of a Google Map application, the data is updated frequently and is available for an $18 annual subscription.
The question remains unanswered; but, maybe I wasn't very clear about what constitutes quick, doable and adequate.
So, I'll explain more and demonstrate some features of a proposed capability that can be obtained at No Cost to Low Cost to the county. It also will allow citizens and county agencies to access accurate map based information on permitted and producing gas wells, pipelines, and other data at no cost.
Really - "No Cost" ?? "Low Cost" ?? Well, Yes, really !
But it does depend on what we demand in terms of accuracy, currency and completeness, and ownership of the data. I'll discuss these items later; first, here is the No-Low Cost proposal.
No cost is simple. Use what already exists and is widely available on the Internet. Low cost means augmenting an existing capability with more data. Both capability levels are based on use of a Google Map Application with all the built-in features of Google maps provided free by Google, including tutorials on how to add features to one's own map application.
There is an existing application developed by a self-proclaimed technology geek who enjoys real-time mapping applications. You can visit his website at Susquehanna County - Gas Exploration Maps to examine different features and map scales. His maps cover Susquehanna County and several adjacent counties in PA and NY. They provide data on permitted and producing wells, major pipelines and compression stations. He updates them monthly or semi-monthly. They are reasonably complete and accurate.
Simply using this application is the No Cost option. The county should publicise it on a county website so people would know where to find it.
For the Low Cost option, the county could deal with this individual to get more information in his data base or to be allowed to maintain a comparable version of his application which the county would update and extend. An obvious extension would be to add small well gathering pipelines and well access roads based on data from the gas companies. If this data were provided in simple GPS coordinates, it would be easy to include in the Google map application.
There you have it - a basic Gas Data Map capability at No to Low Cost with easy Internet access.
Let's demonstrate the "No Cost" option by some Google Map screen shots, starting with this one, County Gas Map 1, that show the county and gas industry information. The Blue east-west line is the Tennessee Gas Pipeline; red balloons are the locations of permitted gas wells; green balloons locate producing well locations; newly permitted pipelines are shown as blue flags; other icons locate other gas activities.
The second screen shot, County Gas Map 2, zooms to a smaller scale map to show the wells in relation to local roads. We can reduce the scale more and get closer by sliding the Google map scale indicator in the + direction. At this scale we can see a red triangle that depicts the location of a gas compression station.
Clicking the mouse on any symbol, e.g.. a green balloon, causes an info bubble to pop-up with descriptive information on well ID, production or other data.The pop-up for the green balloon directly above the red triangle states it is the Teel 5 well by Cabot, facility ID 700047, the first production well in NE PA. The pop-up bubble for the balloon to the right of it identifies it as Black 2H well by Cabot, Facility ID 706268, which produced 8.3Mmcf/d with a 4 stage frac on 3-3-09.
The information inside an information bubble is whatever the map developer wants to put there. In addition, each bubble has a Google feature that allows you to enter your current location and get a route map and driving directions from your location to the well (bubble)location. Since this is a Google Map application, all the Google map features are available. We could shift from the standard map format, shown above, to one that overlays the data on a terrain map or on satellite imagery. Of course, the satellite imagery would only show features present when the image was taken, such as trees, fields, ponds, and buildings.
So, now lets discuss those mapping performance terms and what they imply for costs to enhance the existing gas data map application.
Accuracy means how precisely the gas location data is measured and plotted on the map. If we demand survey level accuracy, the map capability will be costly and take a while to create. If we can live with accuracy equal to a standard GPS - based automobile or handheld navigation system, we can have a capability fast and at no cost to low cost. I believe that level of accuracy is adequate.
Currency means how timely the plotted data is; for example, if a new well permit is issued, do we want it to be plotted and the map updated within a day? or a week? or would a month be timely enough? Completeness means how much new data is captured and plotted on a timely basis; must it be 100% or is 80-90% enough? Since we have nothing now, I suggest that getting "most" data updated on the map one or twice a month is adequate.
Going from "most" to all or almost all takes us from No to Low Cost or more; going from once or twice a month to daily has the same effect.
Ownership of the data means who has control of the data base and the mapping application. If we demand that the county own it all, it will cost money and employee time. If we are willing to use a product owned and maintained by a third party, then our cost is none to low, depending on what we require of the third party in terms of currency, completeness and assured accessibility to the map application.
Bottom Line - I propose that the county use the above existing application "as is" for an immediate no cost capability. Publicize this on a county website for citizen access.
To gain more capability, define what additional information is needed and conduct two negotiations. First, negotiate with the application developer to add more information in a timely fashion either by him or by a partnering arrangement with the county, possibly by maintaining a county version. Second, negotiate with the gas companies to get timely access road and pipeline data in a format for easy entry into the map application.
Update - I should also reference this other primary source of information on Gas Wells in Susquehanna County PA. The main website is at RLSTORE.COM . It has considerable data on current well activity and maps of well sites. Although the maps lack the scaling and manipulation features of a Google Map application, the data is updated frequently and is available for an $18 annual subscription.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mapping County Gas Data
My last post discussed the May 28 Gas Force meeting and noted that the county no longer has a GIS capability and could not map gas pipelines, access roads and well locations. I found that surprising since the Penn State Land Analysis Lab had trained the county on a GIS system many years ago and much of the county was mapped by an intern. Way back then, the Penn State Lab was working on a consumer friendly interface to GIS information.
A user friendly Geographic Information System (GIS) would be useful now to keep track of the new gas exploration data. So why can't we get one? Maybe the Penn State lab has some new tools to help.
Then again, maybe we already have a free GIS available . Maybe the real question is : why can't we use Google Map Applications to do the job?
Google Maps is a very user friendly, very large GIS, available free to anyone who wants to design and maintain a Google Map Application.
Some folks have already done so, mapping gas well permits, producing gas wells, major pipelines, and other data on Google Maps. To see a local product, link to Susquehanna County - Gas Exploration Maps . This site, and several other online maps, was developed by "Railroad - RR", a self-described Techno Geek, who is very into maps and real-time data sharing. He maintains it with new data every month or so. There are other interested smart people who do this sort of thing for fun or profit. They gather data from county or state offices where permits are filed.
This information is accessible by anyone with a laptop and internet connection. If the county wants a comparable simple GIS for gas information, this seems like a place to start. If we can define what we want represented, we should be able to find someone to create a new, or modify an existing, map application.
As for populating the data base with new information, define a suitable format for data entry and ask gas companies to provide the data. They may be willing to do so and to use the resulting maps. Or the county could require road access and pipeline data as a public safety measure if we do not already have it.
So, back to my basic question, why can't we use Google Maps to create a county gas data GIS capability? And do it fast and inexpensively ?
A user friendly Geographic Information System (GIS) would be useful now to keep track of the new gas exploration data. So why can't we get one? Maybe the Penn State lab has some new tools to help.
Then again, maybe we already have a free GIS available . Maybe the real question is : why can't we use Google Map Applications to do the job?
Google Maps is a very user friendly, very large GIS, available free to anyone who wants to design and maintain a Google Map Application.
Some folks have already done so, mapping gas well permits, producing gas wells, major pipelines, and other data on Google Maps. To see a local product, link to Susquehanna County - Gas Exploration Maps . This site, and several other online maps, was developed by "Railroad - RR", a self-described Techno Geek, who is very into maps and real-time data sharing. He maintains it with new data every month or so. There are other interested smart people who do this sort of thing for fun or profit. They gather data from county or state offices where permits are filed.
This information is accessible by anyone with a laptop and internet connection. If the county wants a comparable simple GIS for gas information, this seems like a place to start. If we can define what we want represented, we should be able to find someone to create a new, or modify an existing, map application.
As for populating the data base with new information, define a suitable format for data entry and ask gas companies to provide the data. They may be willing to do so and to use the resulting maps. Or the county could require road access and pipeline data as a public safety measure if we do not already have it.
So, back to my basic question, why can't we use Google Maps to create a county gas data GIS capability? And do it fast and inexpensively ?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Jessup News Post - May 2009
Township Meeting
At a special meeting on 28 April, the township decided to accept a bid for crushing blue stone at the township site and a bid for insurance.
The regular meeting was held on 6 May. There was a brief summary of items from the recent PSATS meeting. Apparently, there is continued pressure from the state to consolidate townships or force more coordination. Most townships officials feel there is good coordination and the state's help is not needed.
Two traffic concerns were discussed. One is a long-standing problem with a resident-business that blocks a local road with stone pallets and trucks. Possible enforcement options were discussed. The second concern was raised by a resident about excessive speeding on a dirt road near homes. Discussion centered on posting a 25 mph limit for that road segment.
The next township meeting will be held on June 3 at 7PM. Additionally, Jessup will host the first quarterly meeting of the NTC on June 18 at 7PM.
Other Meetings
The county gas task force met at 9:30 AM on May28, prior to the economic development board meeting. The meeting centered around items presented by the Central Bradford Progress Authority which supports the task force and the board. Information about the CBPA activities and newsletters can be found at their website.
The discussion continued into the formal board meeting along with a number of other agenda items. The CBPA is gathering information from several sources and direct contacts with gas companies. The material they handed out can be obtained from the Commissioners office. There is a new DEP fact sheet coming out that defines the DEP and Conservation Office roles in monitoring Marcellus wells; for the most part, DEP is in charge of permitting and monitoring.
CBPA is planning to have an "Expo" to foster better understanding of gas company needs and of local sources to supply those needs. A key goal is get more gas related economic activity performed locally by local people. As an example of the problem, some local people obtained water trucks to provide hauling services for well fracing, but their business was not consistent and the gas companies have brought in outfits from other states. The companies have very rigid standards for this and other activities and prefer to deal with a prime supplier who understands the standards and can handle load variations. Hence the need for more specific communications.
A suggestion was made about getting local suppliers to coordinate their activities and offer services through a single Point of Contact to the gas companies to simplify the companies management of suppliers.
There is interest in developing new business opportunities by using some of the gas produced here for local commercial activities. Development of gas-generated electricity is especially attractive and some companies (Claverack was mentioned) are interested in this prospect.
Bob Templeton mentioned that there are two compression sites - one in Springville and one in Rush. It is expected that there will be more activity this year along the route 706 corridor. It also seems that there is no county Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to map well sites, access roads, and pipeline routes, even if provided by the companies. Knowing the location of access roads is important if emergency action is needed; but the planned road routes often change as the well site is developed. Several years ago, the county developed a GIS capability with the help of the Penn State Land Analysis Laboratory. Penn State has a Geospatial Technology program that might be able to help the county .The board asked that the commissioners look into what GIS capability we may still have and what could be obtained.
The CBPA handout included a fact sheet by DEP. There is quite a bit more information from DEP about the Marcellus Shale at this PA DEP website which has a page full of informative links to reports, maps and fact sheets. These range from very brief items to hundred page reports.
Among the better longer items, listed under the FAQs heading, is this new (April 2009) US DOE primer on Marcellus Shale (Gas_Primer_2009.pdf ). I've only skimmed it, but it has a lot of good information.
There are also 1-page maps showing recent well permits and total wells drilled through April 2009. The map of Marcellus wells reveals an interesting line of west-east sites from mid - Tioga County through Bradford County to the heavy heavy concentration of wells in the southwest quarter of Susquehanna County. Through April 2009, there were 497 Marcellus well permits and 1817 non-Marcellus permits issued in the state. That 21% Marcellus permit ratio is quite high and lends credibility to the forecast of substantial activity for the rest of the year into 2010.
Cabot has drilled several horizontal wells which exhibit high pressure and flow. One early well began at 6.4 million cubic feet (mmcf) per day and was producing 4.3 mmcf after 105 days. Two more recent ones showed different decline rates. One well had initial production of 8.3 mmcf and declined to 4.1 mmcf after 60 days; the other began at 8.8 mmcf and declined to 8.0 mmcf after 60 days. More data will be needed to establish confidence in expected decline rates and steady state production; but the initial data is very encouraging.
An interesting observation about the combined gas force - economic board meeting was that there was a good deal of citizen interaction and the focus stayed on useful information. That's a good sign for a starting effort. Currently, the gas force meeting starts at 9:30AM in the small main level conference room. Then the group moves to the large lower conference room for the full economic board meeting at 10AM. Meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of each month.
At a special meeting on 28 April, the township decided to accept a bid for crushing blue stone at the township site and a bid for insurance.
The regular meeting was held on 6 May. There was a brief summary of items from the recent PSATS meeting. Apparently, there is continued pressure from the state to consolidate townships or force more coordination. Most townships officials feel there is good coordination and the state's help is not needed.
Two traffic concerns were discussed. One is a long-standing problem with a resident-business that blocks a local road with stone pallets and trucks. Possible enforcement options were discussed. The second concern was raised by a resident about excessive speeding on a dirt road near homes. Discussion centered on posting a 25 mph limit for that road segment.
The next township meeting will be held on June 3 at 7PM. Additionally, Jessup will host the first quarterly meeting of the NTC on June 18 at 7PM.
Other Meetings
The county gas task force met at 9:30 AM on May28, prior to the economic development board meeting. The meeting centered around items presented by the Central Bradford Progress Authority which supports the task force and the board. Information about the CBPA activities and newsletters can be found at their website.
The discussion continued into the formal board meeting along with a number of other agenda items. The CBPA is gathering information from several sources and direct contacts with gas companies. The material they handed out can be obtained from the Commissioners office. There is a new DEP fact sheet coming out that defines the DEP and Conservation Office roles in monitoring Marcellus wells; for the most part, DEP is in charge of permitting and monitoring.
CBPA is planning to have an "Expo" to foster better understanding of gas company needs and of local sources to supply those needs. A key goal is get more gas related economic activity performed locally by local people. As an example of the problem, some local people obtained water trucks to provide hauling services for well fracing, but their business was not consistent and the gas companies have brought in outfits from other states. The companies have very rigid standards for this and other activities and prefer to deal with a prime supplier who understands the standards and can handle load variations. Hence the need for more specific communications.
A suggestion was made about getting local suppliers to coordinate their activities and offer services through a single Point of Contact to the gas companies to simplify the companies management of suppliers.
There is interest in developing new business opportunities by using some of the gas produced here for local commercial activities. Development of gas-generated electricity is especially attractive and some companies (Claverack was mentioned) are interested in this prospect.
Bob Templeton mentioned that there are two compression sites - one in Springville and one in Rush. It is expected that there will be more activity this year along the route 706 corridor. It also seems that there is no county Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to map well sites, access roads, and pipeline routes, even if provided by the companies. Knowing the location of access roads is important if emergency action is needed; but the planned road routes often change as the well site is developed. Several years ago, the county developed a GIS capability with the help of the Penn State Land Analysis Laboratory. Penn State has a Geospatial Technology program that might be able to help the county .The board asked that the commissioners look into what GIS capability we may still have and what could be obtained.
The CBPA handout included a fact sheet by DEP. There is quite a bit more information from DEP about the Marcellus Shale at this PA DEP website which has a page full of informative links to reports, maps and fact sheets. These range from very brief items to hundred page reports.
Among the better longer items, listed under the FAQs heading, is this new (April 2009) US DOE primer on Marcellus Shale (Gas_Primer_2009.pdf ). I've only skimmed it, but it has a lot of good information.
There are also 1-page maps showing recent well permits and total wells drilled through April 2009. The map of Marcellus wells reveals an interesting line of west-east sites from mid - Tioga County through Bradford County to the heavy heavy concentration of wells in the southwest quarter of Susquehanna County. Through April 2009, there were 497 Marcellus well permits and 1817 non-Marcellus permits issued in the state. That 21% Marcellus permit ratio is quite high and lends credibility to the forecast of substantial activity for the rest of the year into 2010.
Cabot has drilled several horizontal wells which exhibit high pressure and flow. One early well began at 6.4 million cubic feet (mmcf) per day and was producing 4.3 mmcf after 105 days. Two more recent ones showed different decline rates. One well had initial production of 8.3 mmcf and declined to 4.1 mmcf after 60 days; the other began at 8.8 mmcf and declined to 8.0 mmcf after 60 days. More data will be needed to establish confidence in expected decline rates and steady state production; but the initial data is very encouraging.
An interesting observation about the combined gas force - economic board meeting was that there was a good deal of citizen interaction and the focus stayed on useful information. That's a good sign for a starting effort. Currently, the gas force meeting starts at 9:30AM in the small main level conference room. Then the group moves to the large lower conference room for the full economic board meeting at 10AM. Meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of each month.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
New PA Supreme Court Assessment Ruling
This Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article discusses the recent state Supreme Court ruling that Allegheny County must reassess because it is taxing homes based on their 2002 worth, which is no longer accurate. With over 500,000 homes in the county, which includes Pittsburgh, the cost of reassessment is estimated to exceed $40 million.
The ruling is causing a lot of concern in the western counties near Pittsburgh. But should we care in Susquehanna County? Maybe.
According to the article, Supreme Court Justice Max Baer's concurring opinion to the court's order suggested setting a statewide standard of how accurate assessments need to be. That could take the heat off local officials. Under Baer's proposal, Allegheny, Westmoreland and 57 other counties ( including Susquehanna) would need to reassess, according to state data.
I'll discuss possible "standards" in a bit, but first some good tidings. Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote in the majority opinion that regulation is best left to the Legislature. And it seems the Legislature is not inclined to force reassessments on almost all counties in the current economic climate. So, we may be saved by political inertia; unless the courts decide to extend the reassessment ruling to all counties.
What statewide standard might be used to judge the accuracy ( or fairness) of assessments? The proposal seems to be to require the county Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) to be less than 20 or preferably less than 15. That standard makes most counties in need of reassessment.
The COD is a measure of the degree of nonuniformity in the ratio of assessed value to market value of properties within a jurisdiction. It is calculated as the average deviation of a group of numbers from the median expressed as a percentage of the median. The smaller the COD, the closer all assessment ratios are to the median value and the "fairer" the assessment process.
At least, that would be the case if market value could be determined accurately for properties. In fact, it is much harder to determine market value in rural areas with lots of high acreage parcels and low turnover than in cities with more uniform properties and high sales turnover.
At any rate, regardless of the accuracy, the state has a data table of each counties COD, at this website :http://www.steb.state.pa.us/Assessmain.asp?OptionCounty=ALLOptionChoice=Disp.
The table lists Huntingdon County at the highest COD of 51.8; and Cumberland County at the lowest COD of 13.1. The mid-point in this range, and also the median, is 32.5 - by definition, half the counties have CODs higher than the median and half have lower CODs. Susquehanna County is right at the median with a COD of 32.5. The five northern tier counties average COD is 31.3.
Allegheny County has a COD of 30.3 and the state Supreme court ruled that it must reassess - but remember that it is a relatively high density county with relatively uniform properties and high sales turnover. That is a very different case from the rural counties and the court's reasoning, being specific to Allegheny County, may not apply more broadly.
As to a statewide COD standard, that seems to be only a judicial suggestion without much legislative interest. Let's hope it stays that way.
The ruling is causing a lot of concern in the western counties near Pittsburgh. But should we care in Susquehanna County? Maybe.
According to the article, Supreme Court Justice Max Baer's concurring opinion to the court's order suggested setting a statewide standard of how accurate assessments need to be. That could take the heat off local officials. Under Baer's proposal, Allegheny, Westmoreland and 57 other counties ( including Susquehanna) would need to reassess, according to state data.
I'll discuss possible "standards" in a bit, but first some good tidings. Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote in the majority opinion that regulation is best left to the Legislature. And it seems the Legislature is not inclined to force reassessments on almost all counties in the current economic climate. So, we may be saved by political inertia; unless the courts decide to extend the reassessment ruling to all counties.
What statewide standard might be used to judge the accuracy ( or fairness) of assessments? The proposal seems to be to require the county Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) to be less than 20 or preferably less than 15. That standard makes most counties in need of reassessment.
The COD is a measure of the degree of nonuniformity in the ratio of assessed value to market value of properties within a jurisdiction. It is calculated as the average deviation of a group of numbers from the median expressed as a percentage of the median. The smaller the COD, the closer all assessment ratios are to the median value and the "fairer" the assessment process.
At least, that would be the case if market value could be determined accurately for properties. In fact, it is much harder to determine market value in rural areas with lots of high acreage parcels and low turnover than in cities with more uniform properties and high sales turnover.
At any rate, regardless of the accuracy, the state has a data table of each counties COD, at this website :http://www.steb.state.pa.us/Assessmain.asp?OptionCounty=ALLOptionChoice=Disp.
The table lists Huntingdon County at the highest COD of 51.8; and Cumberland County at the lowest COD of 13.1. The mid-point in this range, and also the median, is 32.5 - by definition, half the counties have CODs higher than the median and half have lower CODs. Susquehanna County is right at the median with a COD of 32.5. The five northern tier counties average COD is 31.3.
Allegheny County has a COD of 30.3 and the state Supreme court ruled that it must reassess - but remember that it is a relatively high density county with relatively uniform properties and high sales turnover. That is a very different case from the rural counties and the court's reasoning, being specific to Allegheny County, may not apply more broadly.
As to a statewide COD standard, that seems to be only a judicial suggestion without much legislative interest. Let's hope it stays that way.
Thinking about School Funding
This Susquehanna Independent article - Montrose school district enters into gas lease got me thinking about school funding and state aid as well as gas revenues. Probably related to dread of the upcoming August school property tax bill.
The bottom line is the Montrose Area School District will get a 3.3% one time funding increase this year from the gas lease and the federal stimulus, resulting in no property tax increase. Hopefully, some of those funds are being retained to keep taxes down next year. The State allocation of discretionary funds (e.g. Stimulus) does not seem fair to Susquehanna County. Read on for the details.
Montrose Area SD will get $2400/acre for a seven year gas lease on 90 acres; that's a one-time payment of $216,000. Sounds big, but it's less than 1% of the district's $25.2 million 2009-2010 budget. Or, at 3078 taxpayers, think of it as $67 per taxpayer.
The article also states that "3,078 taxpayers had been approved to get a homestead exemption and would realize a tax savings of an average of $361 each, down about $40 each from last year, when fewer persons qualified." You can find the exemption reduction numbers for counties here (pdf Object) as released by the PA Department of Education, showing a total of $613,200,000 in state-funded tax relief with $1,o98,584 going to Montrose Area SD.
In addition, the Federal Stimulus bill provided $720,163,740 to PA for it's school districts. This data table ( PA School District Aid Under SB 850) shows that the stimulus bill allocation to school districts averaged an 11.7% gain over the regular state SB850 funding, which was held constant for the 2009-10 school year. So, Montrose Area SD got another one-time plus up of $610,200.
Susquehanna County districts got stimulus plus-ups ranging between 5.4% and 8.5% ( average 6.9%), with Montrose getting a 7.3% gain. Basically, the stimulus allowed the state to increase school funding without increasing the state education budget. Even so, Susquehanna County's share was well below the state average of 11.7%. So where did the Federal stimulus funds go?
They are spread out quite a bit, but Lancaster County did well and Philadelphia County got a 20.1% increase or $212,594,400 over it's SB850 funds. Philadelphia's % gain is not the biggest, but it's $ gain is by far the biggest. Philadelphia got about 30% of the total stimulus funds. Of course, it is a very large school district and gets about 17% of the usual state (SB850) funds. Still. it managed to get proportionally almost double its fair share and about 3 times as big a % gain as Susquehanna County.
Doing a little math on these numbers is interesting.
First, the average Montrose Area SD taxpayer did well this year - gaining $198 from stimulus funds and $67 from gas leasing while losing $40 from homestead/farmstead reductions for a net gain of $225. Of course, those gas and stimulus funds won't be there next year. So, we won't get a tax increase this year; but no reduction is planned either. Maybe, some of the extra funds are being retained for tax savings next year. I hope so, they add up to 3.3% of the district's budget this year. I'd hate to have a "balanced" budget this year followed by a 3-4% tax hike next year.
Next, looking at the available state aid funds, we see that Montrose Area SD got about 1.8% of the state homestead/farmstead exemption funds, 1.4% of the state SB850 funds, and 0.9% of the federal stimulus funds. I can't explain why these ratios are so different.
I wonder if it could be related to the amount of political discretion the State Administration has in allocating the funds? The exemption funds are set by formula in the legislation; the stimulus funds are very discretionary. Just another thought.
The bottom line is the Montrose Area School District will get a 3.3% one time funding increase this year from the gas lease and the federal stimulus, resulting in no property tax increase. Hopefully, some of those funds are being retained to keep taxes down next year. The State allocation of discretionary funds (e.g. Stimulus) does not seem fair to Susquehanna County. Read on for the details.
Montrose Area SD will get $2400/acre for a seven year gas lease on 90 acres; that's a one-time payment of $216,000. Sounds big, but it's less than 1% of the district's $25.2 million 2009-2010 budget. Or, at 3078 taxpayers, think of it as $67 per taxpayer.
The article also states that "3,078 taxpayers had been approved to get a homestead exemption and would realize a tax savings of an average of $361 each, down about $40 each from last year, when fewer persons qualified." You can find the exemption reduction numbers for counties here (pdf Object) as released by the PA Department of Education, showing a total of $613,200,000 in state-funded tax relief with $1,o98,584 going to Montrose Area SD.
In addition, the Federal Stimulus bill provided $720,163,740 to PA for it's school districts. This data table ( PA School District Aid Under SB 850) shows that the stimulus bill allocation to school districts averaged an 11.7% gain over the regular state SB850 funding, which was held constant for the 2009-10 school year. So, Montrose Area SD got another one-time plus up of $610,200.
Susquehanna County districts got stimulus plus-ups ranging between 5.4% and 8.5% ( average 6.9%), with Montrose getting a 7.3% gain. Basically, the stimulus allowed the state to increase school funding without increasing the state education budget. Even so, Susquehanna County's share was well below the state average of 11.7%. So where did the Federal stimulus funds go?
They are spread out quite a bit, but Lancaster County did well and Philadelphia County got a 20.1% increase or $212,594,400 over it's SB850 funds. Philadelphia's % gain is not the biggest, but it's $ gain is by far the biggest. Philadelphia got about 30% of the total stimulus funds. Of course, it is a very large school district and gets about 17% of the usual state (SB850) funds. Still. it managed to get proportionally almost double its fair share and about 3 times as big a % gain as Susquehanna County.
Doing a little math on these numbers is interesting.
First, the average Montrose Area SD taxpayer did well this year - gaining $198 from stimulus funds and $67 from gas leasing while losing $40 from homestead/farmstead reductions for a net gain of $225. Of course, those gas and stimulus funds won't be there next year. So, we won't get a tax increase this year; but no reduction is planned either. Maybe, some of the extra funds are being retained for tax savings next year. I hope so, they add up to 3.3% of the district's budget this year. I'd hate to have a "balanced" budget this year followed by a 3-4% tax hike next year.
Next, looking at the available state aid funds, we see that Montrose Area SD got about 1.8% of the state homestead/farmstead exemption funds, 1.4% of the state SB850 funds, and 0.9% of the federal stimulus funds. I can't explain why these ratios are so different.
I wonder if it could be related to the amount of political discretion the State Administration has in allocating the funds? The exemption funds are set by formula in the legislation; the stimulus funds are very discretionary. Just another thought.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Jessup News Post - April 2009
Township Meeting
The Township will participate in a county meeting to decide who will be the single income tax collecting agency for the county per Act 32. The State requires us to hire a single agent to collect all school and town income taxes and then allocate the funds to each. An oversight committee or mechanism is also to be determined.
The NTC decision to meet quarterly was discussed; the next meeting will be hosted by Jessup in June. The Township voted to rescind the Intergovernmental Agreement that established a NTC joint planning committee for planning and zoning and to send a letter to the NTC confirming that and stating that it will not adopt zoning. This follows the recommendation from the March NTC meeting.
The Township has informed COG of its decision to use BCI for building code enforcement; COG asked for a more formal notice to close out their efforts and turn over files for the new service provider.
Some gas companies are offering gravel road services and repairs free and are expressing their desire to help maintain roads in good condition when they use them. They prefer to not have a post and bond ordinance. The Township is still addressing the P&B option as a way to assure cooperation on roads.
There are indications that this year will see considerably more gas well drilling activity in the township; particularly along the RT 706 corridor.
Other Meetings
There was no NTC meeting. The County has established an Ad Hoc task force of existing department heads to discuss and coordinate natural gas issues. It may report publicly before the monthly economic development board meetings. Other Jessup Jottings blog posts comment on potential activities for this task force. The April COG meeting should address the planned study of a regional police force; but , per our township representative, Jessup is not participating in that effort.
The Township will participate in a county meeting to decide who will be the single income tax collecting agency for the county per Act 32. The State requires us to hire a single agent to collect all school and town income taxes and then allocate the funds to each. An oversight committee or mechanism is also to be determined.
The NTC decision to meet quarterly was discussed; the next meeting will be hosted by Jessup in June. The Township voted to rescind the Intergovernmental Agreement that established a NTC joint planning committee for planning and zoning and to send a letter to the NTC confirming that and stating that it will not adopt zoning. This follows the recommendation from the March NTC meeting.
The Township has informed COG of its decision to use BCI for building code enforcement; COG asked for a more formal notice to close out their efforts and turn over files for the new service provider.
Some gas companies are offering gravel road services and repairs free and are expressing their desire to help maintain roads in good condition when they use them. They prefer to not have a post and bond ordinance. The Township is still addressing the P&B option as a way to assure cooperation on roads.
There are indications that this year will see considerably more gas well drilling activity in the township; particularly along the RT 706 corridor.
Other Meetings
There was no NTC meeting. The County has established an Ad Hoc task force of existing department heads to discuss and coordinate natural gas issues. It may report publicly before the monthly economic development board meetings. Other Jessup Jottings blog posts comment on potential activities for this task force. The April COG meeting should address the planned study of a regional police force; but , per our township representative, Jessup is not participating in that effort.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
County Action on the Gas Rush
After reading a newspaper account of the Susquehanna Commissioners' action on a gas committee or task force, I wrote the following letter to the local papers. It summarizes some of my earlier posts and and offers suggestions for the committee or task force.
To address the Gas Rush, the county plans to have monthly meetings of the department heads involved with natural gas industry activities followed by public information sessions during the regular economic development board meetings.
This seems a good start. It focuses on improving coordination and actions by internal resources while both informing the public and getting their input.
The county could use this process to cooperate with the townships on common key areas. Let's consider a few possibilities in three areas.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. Do all towns? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could this planning information be aggregated by the county, perhaps on a public website, for use by citizens as well as towns and planning commissions?
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place their contingency plan and emergency data at each well site. Are these plans provided to and coordinated with town and county Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the county lead in joint contingency planning between towns, fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? How should landowner safety and property rights be protected in advance of approval? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions on property uses. Seismic exploration can gather data from deep into adjacent properties where landowner permission or contractual agreement may not exist. Should the county facilitate consistent guidelines to protect property rights as well as public safety?
I'm sure there are many other ideas. Hopefully, these will stimulate a discussion. For more, visit my blog at http://JessupJottings.blogspot.com.
To address the Gas Rush, the county plans to have monthly meetings of the department heads involved with natural gas industry activities followed by public information sessions during the regular economic development board meetings.
This seems a good start. It focuses on improving coordination and actions by internal resources while both informing the public and getting their input.
The county could use this process to cooperate with the townships on common key areas. Let's consider a few possibilities in three areas.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. Do all towns? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could this planning information be aggregated by the county, perhaps on a public website, for use by citizens as well as towns and planning commissions?
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place their contingency plan and emergency data at each well site. Are these plans provided to and coordinated with town and county Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the county lead in joint contingency planning between towns, fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? How should landowner safety and property rights be protected in advance of approval? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions on property uses. Seismic exploration can gather data from deep into adjacent properties where landowner permission or contractual agreement may not exist. Should the county facilitate consistent guidelines to protect property rights as well as public safety?
I'm sure there are many other ideas. Hopefully, these will stimulate a discussion. For more, visit my blog at http://JessupJottings.blogspot.com.
Friday, April 3, 2009
NARO Comes to Susquehanna
Local natural gas rush watchers were introduced to a new player on 26 March, 2009 when the National Association of Royalty Owners, NARO US , held a public information session at the Mountain View High School auditorium. NARO was established in 1979 and recently formed an Appalachia Chapter to serve the interests of royalty owners in our area.
The meeting was co-hosted by First Liberty Bank and Trust. This NARO PRESS RELEASE describes their agenda and speakers. The auditorium was close to full and presentations were among the best I have seen.
There are other good sources of information, such as the Penn State Natural Gas Impacts website. NARO offers a national perspective and serves as a lobbying activity for the landowners and royalty owners. That's important in an industry with big players competing for advantage in a highly regulated government-controlled environment. For example, NARO is lobbying against the federal proposal to eliminate the 15% depletion allowance that owners get now on their royalty income taxes.
This point was impressed on me by several speakers who emphasized the need for royalty owners to manage their gas interests in a realistic business fashion. It's more than just getting a good lease and collecting checks (if you're that lucky). Think of it as a multi-decade investment business that requires proper structuring and managerial oversight.
Both the First Liberty and Lester Greevy presentations discussed options for distributing the the investment estate across generations while minimizing estate and inheritance taxes. I had been considering a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) option, but Mr. Greevy made some very persuasive points in favor of a Family Law Partnership (FLP). As an example, if the surface and subsurface estates are separated and a subsurface FLP is formed , the limited partners may hold 97% non-voting interest and, because of the non-voting aspect, be discounted 40% on estate tax. The details of selecting a business structure (personal ownership, LLC, FLP, etc.) depend on one's family and financial situation. Since the choice will have a long term impact, it seems wise to get professional legal and financial advice when assessing the options.
Additionally, the subsurface gas rights will be assessed by Pennsylvania for estate/inheritance taxes. This value assessment may be highly speculative since there is little knowledge of how the Marcellus gas well production rates decline over time and what income streams may result. The key seems to be to get good assessment and legal talent on your side to establish a likely income stream and the discount rate for calculating present value of that stream.
Some speakers claimed that Range Resources estimates it can take hundreds of wells to establish the decline rate in a new shale formation (like the Marcellus). The decline rate is the rate at which gas well production declines over time. Usually, a shale well starts at very high rate ( 4 Million or more cubic feet per day) and declines to less than half in 1 to 3 years and tapers off to a constant lower flow for decades. The big question is the shape of that exponential curve. And that is not yet well known.
While the discussion focused on the uncertainties of assessing underground gas value for estate tax purpose, it seems the same problems could arise if the state allows local governments to include gas rights in assessing property taxes as is being proposed by some.
Another point had to do with the establishment of "pools"or "production units" by the gas companies. The companies set these units and, based on the relative acreage of each owner in the unit, allocate the gas production royalties to each owner. By including a small percent of an owner's acreage in a unit, the company may control all the owner's acreage, depending on how the lease is written.
The ultimate size or composition of a pool is not obvious when a permit is issued. As an example, Cabot filed a permit for drilling 65 acres locally; subsequently, they altered the boundaries to make a slightly different area that tied down over 850 acres. The good thing is that other landowners received a share of production royalties; the not so good thing was that some owners had all their land tied up based on a very low percentage share of the unit and royalties. Makes a good argument for establishing acreage (or percentage) limits on pooling and for Pugh clauses in a lease.
State Representative Sandy Major gave a good rundown on pending legislation. You can get details on the state legislature website for HB10, HB977, HB473, HB808, HB934 and its companion SB297, and HB834. She also discussed Governor Rendell's proposed severance tax and the new Republican counter proposal to lease State Forest lands.
HB10 is designed to counter a 2002 State Supreme Court ruling that precludes local property tax assessment on the value of underlying gas. The bill is intended to force only the lease holder (i.e., the gas company) to pay. Having seen an earlier version of this bill, that intention was not explicit. Unless extremely well written, this bill is very dangerous.
It will be litigated by the companies and that litigation is apt to include 2 key points : first, the necessity, in equity, to tax equally all underground gas, not just that leased; second, the validity of existing lease contracts that establish liability of the landowner to pay ad valorem (property taxes) taxes in proportion to his royalty share. In other words, if your gas rights are assessed for $10,000 and you have a 15% royalty rate, you may be liable for added tax on your $1,500 share. Of course you may be due a reduction for the loss of 85% of your gas rights. But what about your neighbor who has no lease? Why should he escape taxation on his assumed underground gas rights? This bill may prove more a problem than a solution.
HB977 has some very desirable benefits. It declares the Marcellus shale gas as being covered by the Oil and Gas Conservation Law with added protection from gas drainage by companies on nearby land. It forbids any horizontal drilling under unleased land. It introduces unitization concepts which should protect the rights of unleased owners, but may need updating to reflect the geologic realities of shale gas deposits as opposed to oil deposits.
The Governor's severance tax proposal is intended to go 100% to the general treasury with no allocation to local governments to cover the cost of services in gas producing areas. This tax is in addition to normal corporate and personal income taxes on gas production and royalty incomes. Even so, I think a severance tax, modified to allocate a fair percentage to the gas producing counties and towns, is preferable to the HB10 property tax proposal.
Finally, the House Energy Tax Force has an alternative proposal to the severance tax. This proposal would lease 390,000 acres of Forest Service lands for a minimum of $2000/acre over the next 3 years. It would produce more income than the severance tax, would not be a dis-incentive to gas production. and allocates a portion of the revenue back to gas producing towns and counties. Although the allocation formula needs reworking to be fairer to the Marcellus Shale areas, this seems the best option for getting new gas related revenue.
All of these bills are being reviewed in committee and it will be a while before anything is settled.
It's not easy to assess the impact of these potential state laws or to track their progress; the same can be said for prospective federal laws and state and federal regulations. Maybe by having Sandy speak, NARO was making a subtle point about their value to land and royalty owners.
The meeting was co-hosted by First Liberty Bank and Trust. This NARO PRESS RELEASE describes their agenda and speakers. The auditorium was close to full and presentations were among the best I have seen.
There are other good sources of information, such as the Penn State Natural Gas Impacts website. NARO offers a national perspective and serves as a lobbying activity for the landowners and royalty owners. That's important in an industry with big players competing for advantage in a highly regulated government-controlled environment. For example, NARO is lobbying against the federal proposal to eliminate the 15% depletion allowance that owners get now on their royalty income taxes.
This point was impressed on me by several speakers who emphasized the need for royalty owners to manage their gas interests in a realistic business fashion. It's more than just getting a good lease and collecting checks (if you're that lucky). Think of it as a multi-decade investment business that requires proper structuring and managerial oversight.
Both the First Liberty and Lester Greevy presentations discussed options for distributing the the investment estate across generations while minimizing estate and inheritance taxes. I had been considering a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) option, but Mr. Greevy made some very persuasive points in favor of a Family Law Partnership (FLP). As an example, if the surface and subsurface estates are separated and a subsurface FLP is formed , the limited partners may hold 97% non-voting interest and, because of the non-voting aspect, be discounted 40% on estate tax. The details of selecting a business structure (personal ownership, LLC, FLP, etc.) depend on one's family and financial situation. Since the choice will have a long term impact, it seems wise to get professional legal and financial advice when assessing the options.
Additionally, the subsurface gas rights will be assessed by Pennsylvania for estate/inheritance taxes. This value assessment may be highly speculative since there is little knowledge of how the Marcellus gas well production rates decline over time and what income streams may result. The key seems to be to get good assessment and legal talent on your side to establish a likely income stream and the discount rate for calculating present value of that stream.
Some speakers claimed that Range Resources estimates it can take hundreds of wells to establish the decline rate in a new shale formation (like the Marcellus). The decline rate is the rate at which gas well production declines over time. Usually, a shale well starts at very high rate ( 4 Million or more cubic feet per day) and declines to less than half in 1 to 3 years and tapers off to a constant lower flow for decades. The big question is the shape of that exponential curve. And that is not yet well known.
While the discussion focused on the uncertainties of assessing underground gas value for estate tax purpose, it seems the same problems could arise if the state allows local governments to include gas rights in assessing property taxes as is being proposed by some.
Another point had to do with the establishment of "pools"or "production units" by the gas companies. The companies set these units and, based on the relative acreage of each owner in the unit, allocate the gas production royalties to each owner. By including a small percent of an owner's acreage in a unit, the company may control all the owner's acreage, depending on how the lease is written.
The ultimate size or composition of a pool is not obvious when a permit is issued. As an example, Cabot filed a permit for drilling 65 acres locally; subsequently, they altered the boundaries to make a slightly different area that tied down over 850 acres. The good thing is that other landowners received a share of production royalties; the not so good thing was that some owners had all their land tied up based on a very low percentage share of the unit and royalties. Makes a good argument for establishing acreage (or percentage) limits on pooling and for Pugh clauses in a lease.
State Representative Sandy Major gave a good rundown on pending legislation. You can get details on the state legislature website for HB10, HB977, HB473, HB808, HB934 and its companion SB297, and HB834. She also discussed Governor Rendell's proposed severance tax and the new Republican counter proposal to lease State Forest lands.
HB10 is designed to counter a 2002 State Supreme Court ruling that precludes local property tax assessment on the value of underlying gas. The bill is intended to force only the lease holder (i.e., the gas company) to pay. Having seen an earlier version of this bill, that intention was not explicit. Unless extremely well written, this bill is very dangerous.
It will be litigated by the companies and that litigation is apt to include 2 key points : first, the necessity, in equity, to tax equally all underground gas, not just that leased; second, the validity of existing lease contracts that establish liability of the landowner to pay ad valorem (property taxes) taxes in proportion to his royalty share. In other words, if your gas rights are assessed for $10,000 and you have a 15% royalty rate, you may be liable for added tax on your $1,500 share. Of course you may be due a reduction for the loss of 85% of your gas rights. But what about your neighbor who has no lease? Why should he escape taxation on his assumed underground gas rights? This bill may prove more a problem than a solution.
HB977 has some very desirable benefits. It declares the Marcellus shale gas as being covered by the Oil and Gas Conservation Law with added protection from gas drainage by companies on nearby land. It forbids any horizontal drilling under unleased land. It introduces unitization concepts which should protect the rights of unleased owners, but may need updating to reflect the geologic realities of shale gas deposits as opposed to oil deposits.
The Governor's severance tax proposal is intended to go 100% to the general treasury with no allocation to local governments to cover the cost of services in gas producing areas. This tax is in addition to normal corporate and personal income taxes on gas production and royalty incomes. Even so, I think a severance tax, modified to allocate a fair percentage to the gas producing counties and towns, is preferable to the HB10 property tax proposal.
Finally, the House Energy Tax Force has an alternative proposal to the severance tax. This proposal would lease 390,000 acres of Forest Service lands for a minimum of $2000/acre over the next 3 years. It would produce more income than the severance tax, would not be a dis-incentive to gas production. and allocates a portion of the revenue back to gas producing towns and counties. Although the allocation formula needs reworking to be fairer to the Marcellus Shale areas, this seems the best option for getting new gas related revenue.
All of these bills are being reviewed in committee and it will be a while before anything is settled.
It's not easy to assess the impact of these potential state laws or to track their progress; the same can be said for prospective federal laws and state and federal regulations. Maybe by having Sandy speak, NARO was making a subtle point about their value to land and royalty owners.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Spring is Here!
Yes, I know the calendar claims Spring came on 20 March, but it isn't really here until we start trail riding.
Today, we got our favorite Paso Fino horses out of their winter idleness. They were as ready as we were; coming to the gate eager for something new. The weather was fine with a blue sky, greening fields and still plenty of gaps between the trees. We revisited our hills and forest trails; spotting future trail clearing chores as well enjoying the long cross valley views to other farms.
The Paso is a gaited horse that provides a bounce-free ride - no posting to the trot - just sit for any speed from walk to near gallop. Our horses are 5 and 6 years old. Comfortable under saddle and stable, but spirited and swift if given their head. We let them move out some but held them back enough so they would remember who's in charge.
A good start to the riding season and a good break from farm chores and blogging. Spring is here!
Today, we got our favorite Paso Fino horses out of their winter idleness. They were as ready as we were; coming to the gate eager for something new. The weather was fine with a blue sky, greening fields and still plenty of gaps between the trees. We revisited our hills and forest trails; spotting future trail clearing chores as well enjoying the long cross valley views to other farms.
The Paso is a gaited horse that provides a bounce-free ride - no posting to the trot - just sit for any speed from walk to near gallop. Our horses are 5 and 6 years old. Comfortable under saddle and stable, but spirited and swift if given their head. We let them move out some but held them back enough so they would remember who's in charge.
A good start to the riding season and a good break from farm chores and blogging. Spring is here!
The Biggest Little PV Plant in the East
Commercial scale photovoltaics (PV) comes to Pennsylvania, courtesy of unwitting taxpayers (or, if you prefer, government subsidies). For this post, I'm keeping the original title of a very good article in IEEE Spectrum The Biggest Little PV Plant in the East.
I doubt this will get the notoriety of the old Burt Reynolds - Dolly Parton movie about a Texas "Establishment" of fame and shame - but there is a similarity in how the profits are made. OK, maybe engineers have an odd sense of humor.
Most photovoltaic applications supply electricity for individual home uses - the economics being well suited to dispersed local use rather than concentrated plants that supply the main electric grids. But this plant in Bucks County is the largest east of Arizona and can produce 3 megawatts - enough to power 3000 homes. It spreads over about 7.5 acres of a refuse landfill from which methane gas also is harvested for local use.
Sounds like a green dream come true. But how does it pay for itself?
Well, you have to read the article for the details; but the gist is many taxpayers pay the freight for a few users. And the interlocking corporations involved did not make it easy for the reporter to decipher the details.
The bottom line is that the PV plant can produce electricity at 30 cents per kilowatt hour while the going rate in PA/NJ is 10 cents. That's a pretty large loss on an expensive investment.
But there is more to the story. They don't just sell electricity; they can also profit from Renewable Energy Credits (REC). A dozen states, including Pennsylvania, have mandated that a specified proportion of generated electricity come from solar energy. These "solar carve-outs" are a trade-able commodity and their value is high. In the PA/NJ area, these carve-out RECs sell for as much as $250 and one is "earned" for each megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
So, with RECs included, the PV plant's electricity production cost of 30 cents/megawatt is reduced by 25 cents/megawatt of REC sales. The resulting 5 cents net cost per megawatt is very competitive. Now the investment becomes more attractively profitable.
In essence, the government is providing a regulatory subsidy of 25 cents on a 30 cent production cost - that's us taxpayers and consumers paying for 5/6th of the production costs so some companies can make a profit and seem noble by being "green".
In that old flick, Dolly would tell her "clients" that their pleasure was her business. At least it was a free choice. Nowadays, the government forces us to pay for the pleasure of feeling "green". As Kermit the Frog says "being green isn't easy".
I doubt this will get the notoriety of the old Burt Reynolds - Dolly Parton movie about a Texas "Establishment" of fame and shame - but there is a similarity in how the profits are made. OK, maybe engineers have an odd sense of humor.
Most photovoltaic applications supply electricity for individual home uses - the economics being well suited to dispersed local use rather than concentrated plants that supply the main electric grids. But this plant in Bucks County is the largest east of Arizona and can produce 3 megawatts - enough to power 3000 homes. It spreads over about 7.5 acres of a refuse landfill from which methane gas also is harvested for local use.
Sounds like a green dream come true. But how does it pay for itself?
Well, you have to read the article for the details; but the gist is many taxpayers pay the freight for a few users. And the interlocking corporations involved did not make it easy for the reporter to decipher the details.
The bottom line is that the PV plant can produce electricity at 30 cents per kilowatt hour while the going rate in PA/NJ is 10 cents. That's a pretty large loss on an expensive investment.
But there is more to the story. They don't just sell electricity; they can also profit from Renewable Energy Credits (REC). A dozen states, including Pennsylvania, have mandated that a specified proportion of generated electricity come from solar energy. These "solar carve-outs" are a trade-able commodity and their value is high. In the PA/NJ area, these carve-out RECs sell for as much as $250 and one is "earned" for each megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
So, with RECs included, the PV plant's electricity production cost of 30 cents/megawatt is reduced by 25 cents/megawatt of REC sales. The resulting 5 cents net cost per megawatt is very competitive. Now the investment becomes more attractively profitable.
In essence, the government is providing a regulatory subsidy of 25 cents on a 30 cent production cost - that's us taxpayers and consumers paying for 5/6th of the production costs so some companies can make a profit and seem noble by being "green".
In that old flick, Dolly would tell her "clients" that their pleasure was her business. At least it was a free choice. Nowadays, the government forces us to pay for the pleasure of feeling "green". As Kermit the Frog says "being green isn't easy".
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Jessup News Post - March 2009
Township Meeting :
The 4 March 2009 meeting dealt mainly with new equipment purchase and rental options, COG services, and SALDO options.
The bids for a new backhoe/loader were opened in the presence of the bidders. A used Case 580M was selected as it was much lower in price and satisfied all requirements.
The advantages of renting a gravel crusher and rental options were discussed.
The town will now conduct it's own building code inspection services under a contract with Building Code Inspectors instead of COG. This action will reduce fees to residents. COG will continue to enforce Sewage codes for the town.
Copies of the county SALDO were obtained last month. A Supervisor met with Bob Templeton to discuss town-county cooperation on use of the county SALDO. The discussion of SALDO options concluded that the town would use the county SALDO rather than form a planning commission and adopt their own. The county planning commission is considering inviting town representatives to working sessions on a quarterly basis.
An engineering company provided their plans for examining potential gas well pad sites in the township along Route 706.
The February NTC meeting was briefly discussed. The NTC was informed of our decision to not zone and interest in withdrawing from the controlling Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation (zoning). They indicated they would review the status of the agreement for the next meeting.
NTC Meeting ( at Choconut ) :
The 19 March 2009 NTC meeting was fairly brief. Bill Stewart noted that there was little current activity of interest to most members and suggested meeting bi-monthly instead of monthly. A majority of the township representatives showed a preference for quarterly meetings and that decision was made. The next meeting will be 18 June 2008 in Jessup.
Liberty Township announced that they had voted to not zone. Bruce Griffis confirmed that Jessup had voted to not zone; he also stated that no decision had been taken on SALDO.
The NTC 2008 Audit reports and the March 2009 Treasurer report were provided. The Treasurer report continues to show $59,639 balance in SALDO-Zoning Funds; this is unchanged since Carson Helfrich returned the funds in December 2008. Ms. Kublo asked whether the towns could use those funds for their own SALDO or other uses.
The answer was interesting. The residual funds are being reviewed to determine how much is DCED funding which must be returned to the State Treasury, and how much is from township matching funds. The matching funds would go back to the towns based on their initial contribution. The initial match contributions were set by a formula involving town revenue and size. The basic match was 70% DCED to 30% Town.
So, some funds may be due to Jessup and the NTC – DCED review should be followed.
I asked Bill Stewart what they had decided about changing the NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, since he had taken that action at the February meeting. He deferred to Bob Templeton who informed us that he had consulted Carson Helfrich. According to Carson, the Agreement had never been signed by all the townships.
In other words, the Agreement had never been properly executed in the first place. Bill Stewart suggested any town that had signed and was concerned should rescind the agreement in a town meeting and inform the NTC. This is good advice, and we should take it.
The revelation that the key intergovernmental agreement was never properly executed is amazing. It is equally amazing that the NTC could not answer the question without recourse to Mr. Helfrich through Mr. Templeton.
It also raises the question whether either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance were ever legally valid since they were put together under the auspices of a Joint Planning Committee which was not properly formed under the unexecuted (and invalid) Intergovernmental Cooperation Agrreement.
This interpretation of invalidity is consistent with Carson's letter of 13 January 2009, in which he states: “This zoning ordinance as now designed can be adopted by any of the NTC municipalities independent of adoption by the others.” Implicit is the need, under the MPC, for a town to form its own planning commission which then reviews the proposed ordinance as a template and adopts it as their own town ordinance.
I suggest Jessup rescind the “Agreement” and inform the NTC by letter that we rescind it, are not interested in a joint SALDO, and want reimbursement of the funds due us from the residual Zoning – SALDO funds balance.
A citizen suggested the NTC hold a public meeting to discuss gas pipeline routes crossing town borders, safety, and minimal land disruption issues. The ensuing discussion covered pipelines along road right-of-ways and who should be in the approval process since there are safety and setback issues as well as landowner property rights involved.
Some supervisors thought they should have supervisor-only meetings before letting the public in on their thinking. Ironically, it escaped them that a citizen raised the issue and much thoughtful discussion came from the citizens. It seems a missed opportunity to improve citizen-supervisor relations, although a better place for these discussions may be the proposed county gas committee.
The 4 March 2009 meeting dealt mainly with new equipment purchase and rental options, COG services, and SALDO options.
The bids for a new backhoe/loader were opened in the presence of the bidders. A used Case 580M was selected as it was much lower in price and satisfied all requirements.
The advantages of renting a gravel crusher and rental options were discussed.
The town will now conduct it's own building code inspection services under a contract with Building Code Inspectors instead of COG. This action will reduce fees to residents. COG will continue to enforce Sewage codes for the town.
Copies of the county SALDO were obtained last month. A Supervisor met with Bob Templeton to discuss town-county cooperation on use of the county SALDO. The discussion of SALDO options concluded that the town would use the county SALDO rather than form a planning commission and adopt their own. The county planning commission is considering inviting town representatives to working sessions on a quarterly basis.
An engineering company provided their plans for examining potential gas well pad sites in the township along Route 706.
The February NTC meeting was briefly discussed. The NTC was informed of our decision to not zone and interest in withdrawing from the controlling Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation (zoning). They indicated they would review the status of the agreement for the next meeting.
NTC Meeting ( at Choconut ) :
The 19 March 2009 NTC meeting was fairly brief. Bill Stewart noted that there was little current activity of interest to most members and suggested meeting bi-monthly instead of monthly. A majority of the township representatives showed a preference for quarterly meetings and that decision was made. The next meeting will be 18 June 2008 in Jessup.
Liberty Township announced that they had voted to not zone. Bruce Griffis confirmed that Jessup had voted to not zone; he also stated that no decision had been taken on SALDO.
The NTC 2008 Audit reports and the March 2009 Treasurer report were provided. The Treasurer report continues to show $59,639 balance in SALDO-Zoning Funds; this is unchanged since Carson Helfrich returned the funds in December 2008. Ms. Kublo asked whether the towns could use those funds for their own SALDO or other uses.
The answer was interesting. The residual funds are being reviewed to determine how much is DCED funding which must be returned to the State Treasury, and how much is from township matching funds. The matching funds would go back to the towns based on their initial contribution. The initial match contributions were set by a formula involving town revenue and size. The basic match was 70% DCED to 30% Town.
So, some funds may be due to Jessup and the NTC – DCED review should be followed.
I asked Bill Stewart what they had decided about changing the NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, since he had taken that action at the February meeting. He deferred to Bob Templeton who informed us that he had consulted Carson Helfrich. According to Carson, the Agreement had never been signed by all the townships.
In other words, the Agreement had never been properly executed in the first place. Bill Stewart suggested any town that had signed and was concerned should rescind the agreement in a town meeting and inform the NTC. This is good advice, and we should take it.
The revelation that the key intergovernmental agreement was never properly executed is amazing. It is equally amazing that the NTC could not answer the question without recourse to Mr. Helfrich through Mr. Templeton.
It also raises the question whether either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance were ever legally valid since they were put together under the auspices of a Joint Planning Committee which was not properly formed under the unexecuted (and invalid) Intergovernmental Cooperation Agrreement.
This interpretation of invalidity is consistent with Carson's letter of 13 January 2009, in which he states: “This zoning ordinance as now designed can be adopted by any of the NTC municipalities independent of adoption by the others.” Implicit is the need, under the MPC, for a town to form its own planning commission which then reviews the proposed ordinance as a template and adopts it as their own town ordinance.
I suggest Jessup rescind the “Agreement” and inform the NTC by letter that we rescind it, are not interested in a joint SALDO, and want reimbursement of the funds due us from the residual Zoning – SALDO funds balance.
A citizen suggested the NTC hold a public meeting to discuss gas pipeline routes crossing town borders, safety, and minimal land disruption issues. The ensuing discussion covered pipelines along road right-of-ways and who should be in the approval process since there are safety and setback issues as well as landowner property rights involved.
Some supervisors thought they should have supervisor-only meetings before letting the public in on their thinking. Ironically, it escaped them that a citizen raised the issue and much thoughtful discussion came from the citizens. It seems a missed opportunity to improve citizen-supervisor relations, although a better place for these discussions may be the proposed county gas committee.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Gas Committee Tasks?
The Susquehanna County Commissioners have charged the Economic Development Board with making recommendations for a County Gas Committee. In an earlier post, Here , I offered suggestions and information sources to facilitate discussions about what a county gas committee might do.
This post discusses more specific action areas and tasks for a committee. They are presented in categories of actions, with questions, to stimulate discussions and decisions on priorities and tasks.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. An engineering company provided their drill pad plans to my town prior to our last meeting. Do all towns get similar advance notice? Is it also the case for planned pipeline routes? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could well site drilling and pipeline route planning information be aggregated by the County for sharing with towns and citizens, perhaps by a public website? This information could be used by citizens as well as town and county planning commissions.
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place a plastic cylinder at each well site containing their contingency plan and data in the event of an emergency. Are these plans provided and coordinated with Town and County Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the County lead in joint contingency planning between towns and fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? Who should be made aware of thumper or pipeline routes in advance of permission? Should landowner permission be a prerequisite to approval since they do own the land under the right-of- ways? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions impacting the landowner use of his property. Seismic exploration data can cover a thousand or more feet from the road and should not be gathered without landowner permission or contractual agreement. New county-wide policies or guidelines may be needed to protect property rights as well as public safety.
Paying for Exploitation Services - Gas companies make extensive use of town roads and require other services as indicated above. These new burdens should be paid for by the companies but there are no tax methods to do so at county/town level. Should the County participate in or form alliances with other counties for legislation to get a substantial portion of gas royalty income tax or severance tax allocated back to the counties and towns that produced the gas? If the gas producing counties and legislative districts combined on this issue, they would be a powerful voice if not a majority in both house.
Of course, it is up to the Commissioners to decide what they want a Gas Committee to do and to select the right mix of talent to accomplish the mission. However, some of the above ideas represent important areas of town and county coordination. If they are not being addressed already by existing offices, the committee may a good focal point for establishing coordination and actions among the towns and the county offices.
This post discusses more specific action areas and tasks for a committee. They are presented in categories of actions, with questions, to stimulate discussions and decisions on priorities and tasks.
Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. An engineering company provided their drill pad plans to my town prior to our last meeting. Do all towns get similar advance notice? Is it also the case for planned pipeline routes? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could well site drilling and pipeline route planning information be aggregated by the County for sharing with towns and citizens, perhaps by a public website? This information could be used by citizens as well as town and county planning commissions.
Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place a plastic cylinder at each well site containing their contingency plan and data in the event of an emergency. Are these plans provided and coordinated with Town and County Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the County lead in joint contingency planning between towns and fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?
Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? Who should be made aware of thumper or pipeline routes in advance of permission? Should landowner permission be a prerequisite to approval since they do own the land under the right-of- ways? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions impacting the landowner use of his property. Seismic exploration data can cover a thousand or more feet from the road and should not be gathered without landowner permission or contractual agreement. New county-wide policies or guidelines may be needed to protect property rights as well as public safety.
Paying for Exploitation Services - Gas companies make extensive use of town roads and require other services as indicated above. These new burdens should be paid for by the companies but there are no tax methods to do so at county/town level. Should the County participate in or form alliances with other counties for legislation to get a substantial portion of gas royalty income tax or severance tax allocated back to the counties and towns that produced the gas? If the gas producing counties and legislative districts combined on this issue, they would be a powerful voice if not a majority in both house.
Of course, it is up to the Commissioners to decide what they want a Gas Committee to do and to select the right mix of talent to accomplish the mission. However, some of the above ideas represent important areas of town and county coordination. If they are not being addressed already by existing offices, the committee may a good focal point for establishing coordination and actions among the towns and the county offices.
Susquehanna County Population Update - Decline Really !
The Census Bureau has just released their latest County level population estimates through July 2008. In this post ( Jessup Jottings: Susquehanna County Population Explosion - Really ?? ), I discussed the incredibly high growth projections for Susquehanna County made by the Penn State Data Center(PSDC).
So let's see how those projections stack up to the US Census Bureau latest estimates, released on 19 March 2009. You can find them here ( Population Estimates ) for Pennsylvania and scroll down for Susquehanna County. Remember that PSDC was projecting a straight line growth from the then July 2007 Estimate of 41,115 ( already a 2.6% decline from 2000) to a 2010 projection of 48,523, reflecting an 18% increase in 3 years, to a projected population of 77,530 in 2030.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau sees a different reality. It revised the 2007 estimate down to 41,024 and set the 2008 estimate at 40,831. This reflects an 8-year decline of 3.3% . The trend is down every year since 2000. To reach the PSDC projection for 2010 requires a 2-year growth of 7,692 people or about 19%.
We don't seem to be going in the right direction. According to this Wall Street Journal article ( U.S. Migration Falls Sharply), we should not expect to see much inbound migration due to the economy. Nor should we expect much from the "gas rush" since prices have dropped by 2/3rds and the uncertainty about land values seems to be slowing the land development process.
So, until the PSDC can can up with some serious fact-based reasoning, I'll stick with my bottom line about their projection : it's "Incredible" - as in literally unbelievable.
So let's see how those projections stack up to the US Census Bureau latest estimates, released on 19 March 2009. You can find them here ( Population Estimates ) for Pennsylvania and scroll down for Susquehanna County. Remember that PSDC was projecting a straight line growth from the then July 2007 Estimate of 41,115 ( already a 2.6% decline from 2000) to a 2010 projection of 48,523, reflecting an 18% increase in 3 years, to a projected population of 77,530 in 2030.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau sees a different reality. It revised the 2007 estimate down to 41,024 and set the 2008 estimate at 40,831. This reflects an 8-year decline of 3.3% . The trend is down every year since 2000. To reach the PSDC projection for 2010 requires a 2-year growth of 7,692 people or about 19%.
We don't seem to be going in the right direction. According to this Wall Street Journal article ( U.S. Migration Falls Sharply), we should not expect to see much inbound migration due to the economy. Nor should we expect much from the "gas rush" since prices have dropped by 2/3rds and the uncertainty about land values seems to be slowing the land development process.
So, until the PSDC can can up with some serious fact-based reasoning, I'll stick with my bottom line about their projection : it's "Incredible" - as in literally unbelievable.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Key NTC Intergovernmental Agreement
I have been asked about the key NTC agreement covering zoning and what should be done about it since several townships have voted to not zone. This subject was raised at the 19 February 2009 NTC meeting and should be discussed in future meetings. This post will adress that question directly and reference my earlier blog posts; in particular, the synopsis is useful for those who can't get a copy from their township.
The key NTC agreement is the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation". The synopsis is here: Part 1 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement- Summary Excerpts. My initial comments are here: Jessup Jottings: Part 2 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement. They were written in early January '09 and more recent thoughts are in this post (Jessup News Post - February 2008) summarizing the February NTC meeting.
This key 12 page agreement was established for Joint Planning and Implementation (Zoning) and establishes a "Joint Planning Committee" of elected officials to oversee all actions related to the Comprehensive Plan and any implementing Zoning and land ordinances. In essence, the agreement ties each town to that NTC Planning Committee before they can make or change land ordinances.
Don't get confused by other intergovernmental agreements to create joint planning commissions ( e.g., betwen Rush and Jessup) to follow up on zoning. There's a big legal difference in the MPC between “Committee” and “Commission”. That mistake was made by some at the NTC meeting and caused some confusion. Those "Commission" agreements were not signed and are not at issue.
This agreement was signed by all 12 participating Municipalities and was essential, under the state Municipal Planning Code, to the legality of the NTC Comprehensive Plan which all 12 towns did adopt and sign. It would be essential for Joint Zoning if we were to do that. Being in the agreement is not the same as being in the NTC - Montrose is not participating in the agreement or the Joint Planning Committee, but is in the NTC.
The agreement's status is less clear if some towns decide to zone independently in a coordinated way following the same Joint Comprehensive Plan, while others opt to not zone.
The agreement specifically covers "Implementation " of the joint Comprehensive Plan with the Joint Planning Committee (NOT a "Commission" ) acting to assure towns keep their "implementation" ordinances “Consistent" with the Plan. That could be interpreted to mean any land ordinances, triggering Committee reviews of ordinances by the non-zoning towns.
For towns that are not zoning, it makes no sense to be in the agreement and be required to have their land ordinances reviewed by that joint Committee. It also seems undesirable for the zoning towns to have to go to a committee of non-zoners for approval of changes to their zoning ordinances. So, I think both sides need to reconsider the agreement; terminate it and redo it for those who want to be tied together in joint or coordinated zoning.
The agreement states that a 100% vote is required to change the agreement and 75% vote to terminate it. If a town wants to withdraw on their own, they need to pass a resolution after which there is 1 year waiting period during which the towns stays bound to the agreement ( and I think still a "voting member"). This made sense for Joint Zoning; but not now. The agreement is overtaken by events and should be changed to fit the new facts. The easiest way is to terminate and rewrite it for the willing zoners.
Members of that “Joint Planning Committee" ( elected officials) seem defensive about keeping the agreement in force and their status on it. These options may get discussed at the next NTC meeting. There may be reasons why the agreement should continue; but it seems dangerous for towns to remain in an agreement which seriously limits their freedom of action to make their own land ordinance decisions.
If any forms of joint ordinances or zoning actions are desired in the future, those action should be taken anew and openly.The current zoning debacle has revealed a serious disconnect between the desires of many citizens and their township supervisors. One side feels they are acting in the best interests of their towns; the other side feels their interests have been betrayed to the interests of an unelected regional bureaucracy. Regardless of the merits or justifications on either side, citizens and leaders need a high level of mutual understanding and trust.
Changing this current key intergovernmental agreement will be an important step in that direction. The next step is to reconsider the objectives of the NTC. I doubt that anyone would object to it being an informational forum and a cooperative purchasing group. But, I also doubt that many citizens would endorse it becoming a regional bureaucracy or additional governmental layer. And, unfortunately, that is how many perceive the NTC's role because of the joint zoning effort.
The key NTC agreement is the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation". The synopsis is here: Part 1 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement- Summary Excerpts. My initial comments are here: Jessup Jottings: Part 2 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement. They were written in early January '09 and more recent thoughts are in this post (Jessup News Post - February 2008) summarizing the February NTC meeting.
This key 12 page agreement was established for Joint Planning and Implementation (Zoning) and establishes a "Joint Planning Committee" of elected officials to oversee all actions related to the Comprehensive Plan and any implementing Zoning and land ordinances. In essence, the agreement ties each town to that NTC Planning Committee before they can make or change land ordinances.
Don't get confused by other intergovernmental agreements to create joint planning commissions ( e.g., betwen Rush and Jessup) to follow up on zoning. There's a big legal difference in the MPC between “Committee” and “Commission”. That mistake was made by some at the NTC meeting and caused some confusion. Those "Commission" agreements were not signed and are not at issue.
This agreement was signed by all 12 participating Municipalities and was essential, under the state Municipal Planning Code, to the legality of the NTC Comprehensive Plan which all 12 towns did adopt and sign. It would be essential for Joint Zoning if we were to do that. Being in the agreement is not the same as being in the NTC - Montrose is not participating in the agreement or the Joint Planning Committee, but is in the NTC.
The agreement's status is less clear if some towns decide to zone independently in a coordinated way following the same Joint Comprehensive Plan, while others opt to not zone.
The agreement specifically covers "Implementation " of the joint Comprehensive Plan with the Joint Planning Committee (NOT a "Commission" ) acting to assure towns keep their "implementation" ordinances “Consistent" with the Plan. That could be interpreted to mean any land ordinances, triggering Committee reviews of ordinances by the non-zoning towns.
For towns that are not zoning, it makes no sense to be in the agreement and be required to have their land ordinances reviewed by that joint Committee. It also seems undesirable for the zoning towns to have to go to a committee of non-zoners for approval of changes to their zoning ordinances. So, I think both sides need to reconsider the agreement; terminate it and redo it for those who want to be tied together in joint or coordinated zoning.
The agreement states that a 100% vote is required to change the agreement and 75% vote to terminate it. If a town wants to withdraw on their own, they need to pass a resolution after which there is 1 year waiting period during which the towns stays bound to the agreement ( and I think still a "voting member"). This made sense for Joint Zoning; but not now. The agreement is overtaken by events and should be changed to fit the new facts. The easiest way is to terminate and rewrite it for the willing zoners.
Members of that “Joint Planning Committee" ( elected officials) seem defensive about keeping the agreement in force and their status on it. These options may get discussed at the next NTC meeting. There may be reasons why the agreement should continue; but it seems dangerous for towns to remain in an agreement which seriously limits their freedom of action to make their own land ordinance decisions.
If any forms of joint ordinances or zoning actions are desired in the future, those action should be taken anew and openly.The current zoning debacle has revealed a serious disconnect between the desires of many citizens and their township supervisors. One side feels they are acting in the best interests of their towns; the other side feels their interests have been betrayed to the interests of an unelected regional bureaucracy. Regardless of the merits or justifications on either side, citizens and leaders need a high level of mutual understanding and trust.
Changing this current key intergovernmental agreement will be an important step in that direction. The next step is to reconsider the objectives of the NTC. I doubt that anyone would object to it being an informational forum and a cooperative purchasing group. But, I also doubt that many citizens would endorse it becoming a regional bureaucracy or additional governmental layer. And, unfortunately, that is how many perceive the NTC's role because of the joint zoning effort.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A County Gas Committee ?
Should Susquehanna County establish a County Gas Committee and, if so, what should it do ?
The County Commissioners have discussed creating a "Gas Committee" at recent meetings and have asked the Economic Development Board to address the issue. I attended the 26 February meeting of the Board to learn what was being considered.
The county is rich in Marcellus Shale and the extraction of natural gas is very likely to become a major driver of the county's economy with impacts on public services, infrastructure, and the environment. The Board is an understandable place to start even though the issues may go beyond their normal purview.
While I lack the context of prior discussions, my main impression was that the Commissioners were not going to set the committee's mission and goals. Instead, they wanted the Board to come up with mission, goals, objectives, structure and personnel recommendations - basically from scratch. It is very hard for an advisory board to do this without specific guidance from the executive leadership. The Board accepted the task.
In an attempt to get or clarify some executive guidelines, I commented that the "Committee" might try to do three things : Educate the public ( in conjunction with Penn State's efforts - Don't be redundant); Establish a forum for county offices to discuss and coordinate their actions on gas extraction issues ( safety, roads, etc.); and Identify key legislative or regulatory issues for the County to pursue.
I did not ask whether the committee should be "inward"focused per the first two items above or "outward" focused per the legislative item, which might entail suggesting alliances of legislators or counties for coordinated action (e.g. lobbying). It became clear that the Board would have to define these guidelines for themselves. The main resource for them was their contract staff, the Planning Authority (PA), which had obtained information about two other county committees. Reviewing those documents can be useful if one focuses on committee effectiveness rather than just structure and process.
OK; that's what was. Now what should be done?
Simple answer - I really don't know. But I'll offer a few more suggestions that might help the Board develop recommendations for a county gas committee; or at least stimulate some discussion about what a committee should and could do. The overall guideline should be to prioritize effort - don't do what others are doing; do things that get actions and results.
First - I still like the above 3 objectives : Educate Public ( and Listen); Coordinate Internal Resources; Influence Legislation. These are reasonably distinct areas of endeavor which could be pursued separately. They are not in priority order. The Board should refine and prioritize.
Second - Recognize our strengths and resources : we have a Planning Commission, an EMA office, a Conservation office, a Penn State Extension Office, and other resources ( including knowledgeable citizens) that can be tapped or coordinated.
Third - Accept our limitations : we are a small 41,000 person county with limited volunteer and financial resources. Prioritize on the doable (e.g. if the commissioners won't lobby or permit it, downplay legislative initiatives).
Fourth - Face the inevitable : Expect the commissioners to deflect public concerns onto the committee. Be prepared to listen and do triage ( executive action, staff referral, noted for consideration).
Fifth - Consider organization flexibility - e.g., short term task forces, formed from people who present issues strongly and knowledgeably, to report out with actionable recommendations.
Sixth - Review some pertinent literature but don't get carried away by academic breadth and comprehensiveness - remember item (3) above.
Penn State has a good website on Natural Gas Impacts ( http://naturalgas.extension.psu.ed ) with a lot of information as well as many links to documents and presentations. They link several publications on local government issues and on organizing a local task force.
Of course, there are also some good earlier posts on this blog, Jessup Jottings (http://jessupjottings.blogspot.com) ; and I'll be adding more in the future. This is an important issue and I wish the Board success.
The County Commissioners have discussed creating a "Gas Committee" at recent meetings and have asked the Economic Development Board to address the issue. I attended the 26 February meeting of the Board to learn what was being considered.
The county is rich in Marcellus Shale and the extraction of natural gas is very likely to become a major driver of the county's economy with impacts on public services, infrastructure, and the environment. The Board is an understandable place to start even though the issues may go beyond their normal purview.
While I lack the context of prior discussions, my main impression was that the Commissioners were not going to set the committee's mission and goals. Instead, they wanted the Board to come up with mission, goals, objectives, structure and personnel recommendations - basically from scratch. It is very hard for an advisory board to do this without specific guidance from the executive leadership. The Board accepted the task.
In an attempt to get or clarify some executive guidelines, I commented that the "Committee" might try to do three things : Educate the public ( in conjunction with Penn State's efforts - Don't be redundant); Establish a forum for county offices to discuss and coordinate their actions on gas extraction issues ( safety, roads, etc.); and Identify key legislative or regulatory issues for the County to pursue.
I did not ask whether the committee should be "inward"focused per the first two items above or "outward" focused per the legislative item, which might entail suggesting alliances of legislators or counties for coordinated action (e.g. lobbying). It became clear that the Board would have to define these guidelines for themselves. The main resource for them was their contract staff, the Planning Authority (PA), which had obtained information about two other county committees. Reviewing those documents can be useful if one focuses on committee effectiveness rather than just structure and process.
OK; that's what was. Now what should be done?
Simple answer - I really don't know. But I'll offer a few more suggestions that might help the Board develop recommendations for a county gas committee; or at least stimulate some discussion about what a committee should and could do. The overall guideline should be to prioritize effort - don't do what others are doing; do things that get actions and results.
First - I still like the above 3 objectives : Educate Public ( and Listen); Coordinate Internal Resources; Influence Legislation. These are reasonably distinct areas of endeavor which could be pursued separately. They are not in priority order. The Board should refine and prioritize.
Second - Recognize our strengths and resources : we have a Planning Commission, an EMA office, a Conservation office, a Penn State Extension Office, and other resources ( including knowledgeable citizens) that can be tapped or coordinated.
Third - Accept our limitations : we are a small 41,000 person county with limited volunteer and financial resources. Prioritize on the doable (e.g. if the commissioners won't lobby or permit it, downplay legislative initiatives).
Fourth - Face the inevitable : Expect the commissioners to deflect public concerns onto the committee. Be prepared to listen and do triage ( executive action, staff referral, noted for consideration).
Fifth - Consider organization flexibility - e.g., short term task forces, formed from people who present issues strongly and knowledgeably, to report out with actionable recommendations.
Sixth - Review some pertinent literature but don't get carried away by academic breadth and comprehensiveness - remember item (3) above.
Penn State has a good website on Natural Gas Impacts ( http://naturalgas.extension.psu.ed ) with a lot of information as well as many links to documents and presentations. They link several publications on local government issues and on organizing a local task force.
Of course, there are also some good earlier posts on this blog, Jessup Jottings (http://jessupjottings.blogspot.com) ; and I'll be adding more in the future. This is an important issue and I wish the Board success.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Mathematics, Gas, and Taxes
Let's have fun with mathematics, starting with some interesting numbers about Susquehanna County.
We have 823 square miles of land area and 9 square miles of water; about 932 sq. miles total.
Pennsylvania has 46,058 square miles of surface. Dividing that into 832 yields 1.81% as The County share of the State's surface area.
Geologists and gas companies claim that 60% of the State's area overlays the Marcellus Shale deposits from which we hope to produce large amounts of natural gas. That works out to about 27,600 square miles. Susquehanna County is completely in that area. So, we overlay about 3% of the Marcellus Shale area in the state. The thickness of the shale layer in Susquehanna County is considered to be about twice the average. So, the shale gas value of our deposits is probably a much higher percentage, say perhaps 6%.
There are several estimates of the value of the Marcellus Shale. All are highly speculative until more drilling and production experience is gained. Governor Rendell uses an estimate of $1Trillion in his budget fact sheet on his proposed severance tax. On that basis, at just 3%, the county would have about $30Billion of shale gas under the surface. At higher % estimates for greater thickness, the value could double to $60Billion.
What do those numbers mean in more human terms - like an acre? At 624 acres per square mile times 830 acres in the county, the county has about 518,000 acres. Dividing that into $30Billion gives a value of about $58,000 per acre. At the higher percentages, that could exceed $100,000/acre. Pretty high for most land here!
Of course, these are "averages" and the real value of any specific parcel can be dramatically different depending on what really lies below and can be extracted. In the last couple of years gas companies have paid 5-year lease prices from $25 per acre to over $2,500 per acre for parcels with roughly comparable gas extraction potentials.
The lease prices vary based on the awareness of the landowners, the degree of company competition, the rising price of natural gas, and expectations of high payoffs from a small portion of the large amounts of land leased. Only some of the payoff may come from actually extracting gas from a parcel. The payoff can also come from flipping leases to other companies or from using the land for pipelines at very low annual payments instead of the high gas royalties hoped for by landowners. Some of the leased land will never be worth exploiting and it may be years before that culling is done.
For these reasons, using the lease price as a fair valuation of the underlying gas is apt to be very misleading. Yet, the county commissioners and township supervisors associations propose to use the lease price as the basis for taxing gas rights (or possible deposits) as property. The resulting tax may require companies and landowners to pay disparate amounts for similar parcels regardless of whether they can get any value from the assumed gas deposits.
How a property tax would be written to protect landowners from additional property taxes when they get no revenue is unclear. A severance tax avoids this issue by only taxing the produced gas. If there is no production, there is neither tax nor royalty income. At least, no one is threatened with foreclosure for failing to pay taxes on non-existent gas deposits, as might happen with a property tax.
Unfortunately, the Governor's proposed severance tax is intended to be used to reduce the state deficit and to pay for projects in the cities and counties that have nothing to do with the production of the gas. The burden of paying for gas-production related services (roads, social and law enforcement, etc.)will fall on the producing counties and towns that may see little of the state severance tax.
Before we jump on the need for any new taxes,it's worth noting that successful gas production yields both corporate income taxes and royalty income taxes to the state. The problem is that the state does not allocate a fair share of those taxes back to the local governments that provide the essential services.
The gas-producing counties and towns deserve a fair share of any gas related taxes whether from royalty income tax, corporate income tax, or severance tax. Getting it depends on the effectiveness of our legislators in writing a fair share allocation into the tax laws. And that brings us to some other numbers.
The US Census Bureau estimates Susquehanna County population at 41,123 in 2007. The comparable 2007 estimate for Pennsylvania was 12,432,792 ( the updated Jan09 estimate is now 12,419,930). New county data will be available in April, but the Susquehanna County population will still be about 0.3% of the state population.
So, 3%-6% of the Marcellus Shale gas value is located on land populated by only 0.3% of the voting public. These numbers do not look good for Susquehanna County getting its fair share of any natural gas tax devised in the political horse trading arena of the State Legislature.
Some other numbers may improve the outlook. As a percentage of the state, our population is only 0.3%; but we are 1.5% of the 67 counties; and we elect 1% of the 203 state representatives and 2% of the 50 state senators. Those numbers look more promising.
If we add representatives and senators from other Marcellus Shale areas, the numbers start to look like a strong minority voting block; if we add the other oil and gas producing areas of the state ( mostly the western half), the numbers have the potential to be a decisive voting block. As a reference point, last year,the DEP issued over 7000 gas well permits, but only 450 were for Marcellus Shale gas (about 15% of these in Susquehanna County).There may be a lot of allies for allocating a fair share of state (income or severance) tax revenues derived from gas production back to the producing towns and counties.
Of course, that's just potential; making it real requires a lot of alliance building around some common interests. And that effort is in the realm of politics not mathematics.
We have 823 square miles of land area and 9 square miles of water; about 932 sq. miles total.
Pennsylvania has 46,058 square miles of surface. Dividing that into 832 yields 1.81% as The County share of the State's surface area.
Geologists and gas companies claim that 60% of the State's area overlays the Marcellus Shale deposits from which we hope to produce large amounts of natural gas. That works out to about 27,600 square miles. Susquehanna County is completely in that area. So, we overlay about 3% of the Marcellus Shale area in the state. The thickness of the shale layer in Susquehanna County is considered to be about twice the average. So, the shale gas value of our deposits is probably a much higher percentage, say perhaps 6%.
There are several estimates of the value of the Marcellus Shale. All are highly speculative until more drilling and production experience is gained. Governor Rendell uses an estimate of $1Trillion in his budget fact sheet on his proposed severance tax. On that basis, at just 3%, the county would have about $30Billion of shale gas under the surface. At higher % estimates for greater thickness, the value could double to $60Billion.
What do those numbers mean in more human terms - like an acre? At 624 acres per square mile times 830 acres in the county, the county has about 518,000 acres. Dividing that into $30Billion gives a value of about $58,000 per acre. At the higher percentages, that could exceed $100,000/acre. Pretty high for most land here!
Of course, these are "averages" and the real value of any specific parcel can be dramatically different depending on what really lies below and can be extracted. In the last couple of years gas companies have paid 5-year lease prices from $25 per acre to over $2,500 per acre for parcels with roughly comparable gas extraction potentials.
The lease prices vary based on the awareness of the landowners, the degree of company competition, the rising price of natural gas, and expectations of high payoffs from a small portion of the large amounts of land leased. Only some of the payoff may come from actually extracting gas from a parcel. The payoff can also come from flipping leases to other companies or from using the land for pipelines at very low annual payments instead of the high gas royalties hoped for by landowners. Some of the leased land will never be worth exploiting and it may be years before that culling is done.
For these reasons, using the lease price as a fair valuation of the underlying gas is apt to be very misleading. Yet, the county commissioners and township supervisors associations propose to use the lease price as the basis for taxing gas rights (or possible deposits) as property. The resulting tax may require companies and landowners to pay disparate amounts for similar parcels regardless of whether they can get any value from the assumed gas deposits.
How a property tax would be written to protect landowners from additional property taxes when they get no revenue is unclear. A severance tax avoids this issue by only taxing the produced gas. If there is no production, there is neither tax nor royalty income. At least, no one is threatened with foreclosure for failing to pay taxes on non-existent gas deposits, as might happen with a property tax.
Unfortunately, the Governor's proposed severance tax is intended to be used to reduce the state deficit and to pay for projects in the cities and counties that have nothing to do with the production of the gas. The burden of paying for gas-production related services (roads, social and law enforcement, etc.)will fall on the producing counties and towns that may see little of the state severance tax.
Before we jump on the need for any new taxes,it's worth noting that successful gas production yields both corporate income taxes and royalty income taxes to the state. The problem is that the state does not allocate a fair share of those taxes back to the local governments that provide the essential services.
The gas-producing counties and towns deserve a fair share of any gas related taxes whether from royalty income tax, corporate income tax, or severance tax. Getting it depends on the effectiveness of our legislators in writing a fair share allocation into the tax laws. And that brings us to some other numbers.
The US Census Bureau estimates Susquehanna County population at 41,123 in 2007. The comparable 2007 estimate for Pennsylvania was 12,432,792 ( the updated Jan09 estimate is now 12,419,930). New county data will be available in April, but the Susquehanna County population will still be about 0.3% of the state population.
So, 3%-6% of the Marcellus Shale gas value is located on land populated by only 0.3% of the voting public. These numbers do not look good for Susquehanna County getting its fair share of any natural gas tax devised in the political horse trading arena of the State Legislature.
Some other numbers may improve the outlook. As a percentage of the state, our population is only 0.3%; but we are 1.5% of the 67 counties; and we elect 1% of the 203 state representatives and 2% of the 50 state senators. Those numbers look more promising.
If we add representatives and senators from other Marcellus Shale areas, the numbers start to look like a strong minority voting block; if we add the other oil and gas producing areas of the state ( mostly the western half), the numbers have the potential to be a decisive voting block. As a reference point, last year,the DEP issued over 7000 gas well permits, but only 450 were for Marcellus Shale gas (about 15% of these in Susquehanna County).There may be a lot of allies for allocating a fair share of state (income or severance) tax revenues derived from gas production back to the producing towns and counties.
Of course, that's just potential; making it real requires a lot of alliance building around some common interests. And that effort is in the realm of politics not mathematics.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Jessup News Post - February 2008
Township Meeting:
The 4 February 2008 meeting had a significant discussion of zoning,the related NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning And Implementation, and the proposed NTC SALDO.
After discussion, a unanimous vote was taken to not zone the township.
It was further decided to seek to withdraw from the Intergovernmental Agreement. It requires the township to seek approval of the other 11 municipalities for any land ordinances we want to enact - a condition that is not relevant if we do not zone.
It was decided to investigate other SALDO options including adopting the County SALDO as our own and establishing a planning commission; or establishing a liaison with the County planning commission to improve coordination and input on their decisions. Copies of the County SALDO will be obtained and reviewed.
There was a discussion of obtaining a replacement for the existing backhoe/loader. The decision was to seek bids to do so.
The option of contracting directly with an engineering organization(s)instead of COG for codes and septic enforcement was discussed again with the intent of taking action in the near future to reduce fees to residents.
NTC Meeting:
The 19February2008 NTC meeting was fairly brief. The key items were a discussion of subdivision activity by Bob Templeton and a discussion of zoning and the intergovernmental agreement. Bill Stewart mentioned that Alta Resources may come to the next meeting to discuss their gas leasing and drilling activities. Dave Darrow said that he would be a "Non-Voting" alternate for Franklin Township.
Bill Stewart said there was no report of any township opposed to zoning and he thought all were just talking and no action was taking place. We informed him about the zoning vote in Jessup and Franklin confirmed they had also voted to not zone.
Gene Famolari and Charles Davis, Jessup Rep, raised and discussed the issues about withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Agreement. There was some confusion about whether we wanted to drop from the NTC or just the agreement. Our position was about only the Agreement and this was clarified in the meeting and in a subsequent discussion with Charles Mead.
This NTC meeting had several positives :
Bob Templeton talked about his subdivision summary handout and really endorsed that there is no need for a NTC SALDO based on the number of lots per year for many towns ( e.g. 3/year over 15 years for Jessup.). He said he liked the approach we had discussed about having a Jessup observer attend County planning commission meetings and act as town liaison. He encouraged other towns to consider that.
Bill Stewart tried to defend the NTC's value to one questioner, but could not really point to anything the NTC had done other than getting grants for composting leaf vacuums and improving supervisor relations by regular get-togethers.
I had a long chat with Charles Mead that went from his being angry and convinced I was "misrepresenting" to his understanding my points about what the Intergovernmental Agreement really said, why it needed change and how to do so. We ended up cordial and, perhaps, he will rethink his position.
The key is that the “Agreement” must be updated to do what he and others want to do for the “zoners”. To Change requires a 100% agreement of 12 towns. To Terminate requires only a 75% vote. It is easier to terminate and redo for the willing than to be hard-nosed and force us to withdraw over a year period - during which we are not likely to vote for their needed change.
The issue of changing the intergovernmental agreement is now on the table and should get follow-up in the next meeting. It's important for non-zoners to drop out of it; and that can be done without leaving the NTC. That action gives us freedom from more regulatory efforts by the "joint planning committee" which has a lot of authority ceded it by the towns in the agreement.
On the not so positive side :
Some of the "inner" clique of NTC supervisors are unhappy and may try to find a way to reverse the events or prevent withdrawal. We should be prepared for more discussion on March 19.
Money may be a factor - the budget shows $59.6K tied to SALDO-ZONING. Perhaps they can only keep it if they spend for those items. That could be a terrible incentive to do "wrong" rather than to return the funds. If so, some open discussions and negotiations with DCED could lead to a win-win if approached correctly.
The 4 February 2008 meeting had a significant discussion of zoning,the related NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning And Implementation, and the proposed NTC SALDO.
After discussion, a unanimous vote was taken to not zone the township.
It was further decided to seek to withdraw from the Intergovernmental Agreement. It requires the township to seek approval of the other 11 municipalities for any land ordinances we want to enact - a condition that is not relevant if we do not zone.
It was decided to investigate other SALDO options including adopting the County SALDO as our own and establishing a planning commission; or establishing a liaison with the County planning commission to improve coordination and input on their decisions. Copies of the County SALDO will be obtained and reviewed.
There was a discussion of obtaining a replacement for the existing backhoe/loader. The decision was to seek bids to do so.
The option of contracting directly with an engineering organization(s)instead of COG for codes and septic enforcement was discussed again with the intent of taking action in the near future to reduce fees to residents.
NTC Meeting:
The 19February2008 NTC meeting was fairly brief. The key items were a discussion of subdivision activity by Bob Templeton and a discussion of zoning and the intergovernmental agreement. Bill Stewart mentioned that Alta Resources may come to the next meeting to discuss their gas leasing and drilling activities. Dave Darrow said that he would be a "Non-Voting" alternate for Franklin Township.
Bill Stewart said there was no report of any township opposed to zoning and he thought all were just talking and no action was taking place. We informed him about the zoning vote in Jessup and Franklin confirmed they had also voted to not zone.
Gene Famolari and Charles Davis, Jessup Rep, raised and discussed the issues about withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Agreement. There was some confusion about whether we wanted to drop from the NTC or just the agreement. Our position was about only the Agreement and this was clarified in the meeting and in a subsequent discussion with Charles Mead.
This NTC meeting had several positives :
Bob Templeton talked about his subdivision summary handout and really endorsed that there is no need for a NTC SALDO based on the number of lots per year for many towns ( e.g. 3/year over 15 years for Jessup.). He said he liked the approach we had discussed about having a Jessup observer attend County planning commission meetings and act as town liaison. He encouraged other towns to consider that.
Bill Stewart tried to defend the NTC's value to one questioner, but could not really point to anything the NTC had done other than getting grants for composting leaf vacuums and improving supervisor relations by regular get-togethers.
I had a long chat with Charles Mead that went from his being angry and convinced I was "misrepresenting" to his understanding my points about what the Intergovernmental Agreement really said, why it needed change and how to do so. We ended up cordial and, perhaps, he will rethink his position.
The key is that the “Agreement” must be updated to do what he and others want to do for the “zoners”. To Change requires a 100% agreement of 12 towns. To Terminate requires only a 75% vote. It is easier to terminate and redo for the willing than to be hard-nosed and force us to withdraw over a year period - during which we are not likely to vote for their needed change.
The issue of changing the intergovernmental agreement is now on the table and should get follow-up in the next meeting. It's important for non-zoners to drop out of it; and that can be done without leaving the NTC. That action gives us freedom from more regulatory efforts by the "joint planning committee" which has a lot of authority ceded it by the towns in the agreement.
On the not so positive side :
Some of the "inner" clique of NTC supervisors are unhappy and may try to find a way to reverse the events or prevent withdrawal. We should be prepared for more discussion on March 19.
Money may be a factor - the budget shows $59.6K tied to SALDO-ZONING. Perhaps they can only keep it if they spend for those items. That could be a terrible incentive to do "wrong" rather than to return the funds. If so, some open discussions and negotiations with DCED could lead to a win-win if approached correctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)