Unpopular Reapportionment, Street Talk and More (Notes from Dec. 19 Meeting of PT Council)

Unpopular Reapportionment

“Reapportionment” was the buzzword at Monday night’s regular meeting of Peters Township Council.

Members of council expressed their dissatisfaction with the township’s reapportionment status. Though council discussed the possibility of appealing the redistricting decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, they decided not to file suit at this time.

After the meeting, Councilman David Ball explained what reapportionment is and how the state’s recent decision effects the township.

Reapportionment, or redistricting, is when the state re-divides voting districts to meet the constitutional test of having the appropriate number of voters. It occurs every 10 years after the census is taken.

Ball said that Peters Township is currently in the 40th House District. Under the new plan, two districts (D and B3) will be moved to the 39th House District.

This particular redistricting is problematic for the township because the areas being moved are in the eastern region of the township, where farmland is prevalent and development is expected to take place rapidly over the next few years, said Ball.

Ball told us that he is concerned whether Rick Saccone, representative for the 39th District, will be able to adequately represent and pursue the interests of Peters Township residents when the majority of his constituency is in a different area with different demographics and interests.

“Council has an interest in making sure (the township’s) residents’ needs are met,” Ball noted.

While council may have such an interest, it, as a municipal body, does not have standing to challenge the redistricting decision.

During the meeting, township solicitor William Johnson said that any appeal of the decision would have to be brought by an individual person, or group of persons, each of whom has the ability to vote and be named on the appeal.

Council members, he said, could file suit individually or collectively, if they were so inclined, though it would come at their own expense and could be costly.

After township manager Michael Silvestri told council that the court would consider only whether the re-division was based properly on population, and not consider opinions on the effects of redistricting, council agreed not to bring suit at this time.

No Real Estate Tax Increase for Peters Township

Council unanimously adopted an ordinance to establish and maintain the real estate tax levy for 2012 at 13 mills.

According to Silvestri, based on 98.5 percent collection, one mill of taxes will generate $321,500 in revenue.

Street Talk

Councilwoman Monica Merrell asked Silvestri for an update on concerns she had addressed with him and the township engineer regarding resident complaints over safety issues pertaining to Bebout Bridge and the Sugarcamp tunnel.

She reiterated that the resident concerns were over the lack of lighting in the tunnel and the bends and twists of the road.

Silvestri said that Sugarcamp and Thomas roads have been hit with a higher traffic volume because of detours. For this reason, he said, he is looking to have signs indicating road conditions put up after the new year.

The signs, however, must first be approved by PennDOT, as the roads at issue are state roads.

Capital Improvement Plan

Council adopted a five-year Capital Improvement Plan, as required by the Home Rule Charter. The total estimated capital costs listed in the five-year program are $18,266,911.

Councilman Robert Lewis said that the public must respect that this is a plan, not a commitment, to make these expenditures.

Elaborating on Lewis’ point, Merrell said that it is council’s duty to plan for projects and then look at them on a one-by-one basis as they come up. Council must determine what the township really needs, as opposed to what some people want to be done, she said.

See Ya’ Next Year!

Council’s next meeting will be Jan. 3, 2012. will be invited to the meeting to swear in new council members.