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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)