At the meeting of the Harford Township Supervisors on November 21st, Sue Furney, presiding in the absence of Doug Phelps, announced that Jim Phelps has “parted ways with Harford Township” and is no longer employed by the township. She refused to comment further on the matter. Brother of Supervisor Doug Phelps, Jim Phelps had been the township’s Roadmaster when he was apparently disciplined under murky circumstances a couple of months ago.
Last month it was reported that Doug Phelps “announced that he had been completely exonerated by the State Ethics Commission” of a charge brought by a private citizen that he was vulnerable to a possible conflict of interest due to his employment by the Mountain View School District. A copy of a letter from the Commission to Mr. Phelps recently surfaced that found “no basis to commence a full investigation” on this allegation, and that the Commission considered the matter closed. However, the letter did go on to note that a potential conflict did arise when Mr. Phelps participated in the appointment of his brother to the Roadmaster position.
Ms. Furney also announced the promotion of Steve Welch from part-time to full-time status. In response to a question, Supervisor Dustin Walker said that Mr. Welch would be on probationary status, even though he has already worked for the township for some time.
The relatively large number of people who crowded into the relatively small office for the meeting also heard that while discussions concerning the problematic intersection of Plank Road and U.S. Route 11 are continuing, neither the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) nor anyone else has received further complaints about the dust problems. The township’s solicitor, Jamie Hailstone, said that, on the other hand, there is “no movement on a final solution” to the matter, which is under discussion among the many parties with irons in that fire.
Mr. Hailstone also reported that the Tyler Lake Road dispute was “finally” settled, after a meeting with a judge, and that the resolution of the issues is “now in the hands of the engineers.” Since a “final settlement” was announced once before, last spring, he was asked just how “final” it might be this time. “I think this time it’s really settled,” said he. And in fact, a party to the lawsuit against the township who attended the meeting seemed to acknowledge that the issue has indeed been settled; he wondered that it took so long when his original position seems to have been accepted by the engineers. Details of the settlement were not immediately available.
Supervisor Dustin Walker read a document from the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) introducing a model resolution that would prohibit the establishment of a “mini-casino” in the township pursuant to Act 42 of 2017. According to the PSATS document, and affirmed by attorney Hailstone, Act 42 allows for the establishment of 10 “category 4” casinos (operating a relatively small number of slot machines) across the state. Under the act, a municipality hosting such an enterprise would be entitled to half of the 4% tax that would be levied against such casinos, up to a maximum of 50% of the municipality’s budget. Municipalities have until December 31 of this year to declare by resolution that they don’t want such things in their jurisdictions, a position that can be rescinded, once. The Supervisors decided to table the measure until the December meeting.
They also tabled consideration of a lengthy report on an inspection of a bridge on Plank Road.
But township Secretary Carolyn Jennings will have some extra work to do to compile a list of residence addresses in the township in preparation for the 2020 census. The data isn’t required, but the Supervisors found no reason not to comply with the request.
Attorney Hailstone reported that new legislation has made “unenforceable” a 1986 township ordinance defining weight limits on its 61 miles of roads. Such designations are allowed, but now require extensive (and expensive) engineering studies to justify them, and such studies might simply conclude that the desired weight limits are unjustified anyway. In response to a question he also said that repealing the ordinance would incur the cost of advertising and is unnecessary since the ordinance itself is limited by language that subjects it to current law. Mr. Hailstone said that the impact fees distributed under Act 13 are supposed to provide for road maintenance, and that levies such as bonds and over-weight fines intended for road maintenance are superseded by that source of funds.
In fact, someone questioned the receipt of over $8,000 from Southwestern Energy noted in the Treasurer’s report as “dust control reimbursement.” Ms. Furney said that gas companies placing heavy demands on Three Lakes Road generally handle dust control themselves, but that in one case the township was called in and the gas company reimbursed the expense.
Responding to another question about some $185 paid to Mr. Walker as shown on the bill list, Mr. Walker himself said that he was paid for “extra work” outside his duties as a Supervisor. The question seemed to refer to the distinction between work as an elected Supervisor and work for the township that was not directly related to his Supervisor’s position. He has alternately been referred to as Assistant Roadmaster and as a “working supervisor.” Mr. Hailstone said that the Township Code allows Supervisors to be also employed by the township, but that the use of the term “working supervisor” is discouraged.
Asked about the status of the sewer system renovation project that was stalled by DEP, which considered the township’s application incomplete. Characterizing the situation as “frustrating,” Mr. Hailstone said that the project may “need a new engineer to step in.” He remarked that it’s “not often that an engineer gets indicted,” as happened to the engineer who designed the project, David Klepadlo (who also designed the original system and oversaw its construction and operation for more than 20 years). He hoped that it would not be necessary to completely discard the existing design, and that construction might begin next spring as planned. He said that the mixup probably arose when it was assumed that because the Department of Agriculture approved the project plan as a basis for backing the project’s funding, DEP would simply go along. Big mistake.
In fact, an executive session was announced to follow the public meeting to discuss “possible litigation with DEP.”
It was almost an afterthought, but the Supervisors approved a preliminary budget for 2018. It will be available for public review until the December meeting, on the 19th. Details were outlined last month, and according to Ms. Furney, the figures haven’t change since then. The budget anticipates no increase in property tax rates (nor does it expect an increase in property tax income). The largest increase in projected expenditures is budgeted to come from the “impact fee” account, from funds distributed by the state from natural gas exploitation activities. In general, expenses are expected to rise only modestly next year.
The Harford Township Supervisors will meet again on Tuesday, December 19th, beginning at 7:00pm at the township office on Route 547.
