mail Issues with Manager

LANDIS Ms. Landis expressed her frustration regarding a communication she had sent to the Manager with regard to the police department. The email communication had been transmitted on July 13, 2010 and she received no response. She debated with the board with regard to whether or not a member of the board had the right to question the Manager, in private or in public, concerning his duties as they relate to managing the township. It was noted that no board member has the authority to direct the Manager not to answer a question.

A lengthy discussion ensued and it was the consensus of the board to discuss the matter in an Executive Session in order to determine whether or not this was a personnel issue.

Fourth of July Celebration

DVORYAK Mr. Dvoryak thanked the staff for all the efforts on the Fourth of July event which he had attended. He thought everything went smoothly and was done very well. He issued special kudos to whoever was involved in selecting the entertainment this year, which was an excellent choice. He heard numerous comments speaking very favorably of Vocal Trash.

SCHENCK Chairman Schenck indicated that he, too, had received an extraordinary amount of compliments on the fireworks display. He understood that there had been some residual money from an earlier rained out event.

HOLMAN Mr. Holman responded that fireworks from the rained out event were used as part of these fireworks. The gentleman carried those fireworks over for this event, which made for a larger show.

SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP JULY 22, 2010

REGULAR MEETING APPROVED

27

HOLMAN Mr. Holman thanked the sponsors who helped offset the costs of the fireworks display.

Battery Backups

SCHENCK Chairman Schenck commented that, during the road tour, the power went out. There was a message about the battery backup on the signals. He just wanted to be sure that the fire police and volunteer fire company would be able to engage their offer for standby generators.

LAUER Mr. Lauer responded that he thought Milt’s Repair Service had already checked out the generators. He offered to check on it.

YCEDC

BISHOP Mr. Bishop brought forward the subject of the certificate of membership in the York County Economic Development Corporation. Springettsbury Township must apply each year to be a member with zero dues; however, he was not certain that the township had ever decided to be a member or not.

Block Party

BISHOP Mr. Bishop commented on the block party issue, and felt certain that there was a board consensus to do whatever possible to make sure that the township is not standing in the way. Mr. Holman had mentioned that there might be a possibility of training someone internally to do traffic studies, and that seemed to be an excellent idea.

HOLMAN Mr. Holman stated that PennDOT offers that specific training, and some of the Public Works Superintendents and others could be trained to do the traffic studies.

BISHOP Mr. Bishop mentioned that other municipalities might want to use that service.

HOLMAN Mr. Holman responded that there are several other municipalities that have their people trained and he will be in contact with them. Springettsbury had always used the county service.

BISHOP Mr. Bishop added that he was not certain what might take place with the one in question this date, but hopefully there will be a way to make sure it wouldn’t cost them $260 to have their function.

SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP JULY 22, 2010

REGULAR MEETING APPROVED

28

SCHENCK Chairman Schenck questioned whether there was anyone on the board who wants this neighborhood to have to pay $260 to be able to have a block party. He was aware that Solicitor Rausch would be writing an opinion on the subject.

RAUSCH Solicitor Rausch responded that he had made note of it and will write an opinion.

10. SOLICITOR’S REPORT

RAUSCH Solicitor Rausch reported that on July 6, 2010, General Assembly Law Act 46- 210 was signed into law. It was to amend the state’s fiscal code pertaining to the finance of the state government. However, they added an article that was to bring relief to developers and applicants whose developments had been stalled during the present economy. They extended any building permit or approval such as Zoning Hearing Board or Land Development that would expire between

December 31, 2008 and July 2, 2013. That expiration period would be extended. Solicitor Rausch stated if the board does nothing, the automatic suspension period will just run. There is another provision in the act that says a municipality can charge a fee to extend the approval, and it cannot be more than 25% of the original application fee.

An extended discussion took place which is summarized:

Municipalities care about zoning and planning rather than the money aspect. Developers have incentive to extend if a fee is charged, but if not; their

Building Permit will remain suspended for three years. Municipalities can charge a fee to extend an approval. The bottom line is to give relief to builders and developers.

The subject was not discussed at the Local Government Advisory Committee. Municipal Managers discussed; some money can be charged.

Interpretation coming from York County and municipal attorneys, but statute has passed.

If a developer desires to renew, fee can be charged a renewal fee (25% of original fee but no greater than $5,000). Plan will then be extended until 2013.

Must be advertised by July 30, 2010.

Review to be made of building permit and planning requests. Enforcement could be made through MPC.

Resolution 2010-42 was drafted for review. Solicitor recommended adoption.

MR.DVORYAK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2010-42. MS. LANDIS WAS