As some may know, I was very vocal against the Hamilton Crossings TIF. While they claimed that it was essential for mitigating the environmental damage from mining the site long ago, that was all self-contained and not a hazard to anyone. That TIF essentially enriched the landowners by allowing the developer to overpay for the land by just about that amount of the TIF. If push came to shove, they would have done the project anyway. In the meantime, EPSD will lose more than $10 million of revenue under the TIF, which Mr. Saul mentioned during part of his explanation about the expected 96.2% real estate tax collection.
On the other hand, the property in Emmaus is truly a nuisance to the community. The benefit for this project may be greater to the community with 1/20th of the cost to EPSD for HC TIF. So, I think I could go along with it, following Dr. Levinson's remarks. It's a close call.
Finally, I do want to mention a funding fallacy which was promulgated during last night's (2/10/2025) school board meeting, One member attempted to describe all of the budget priorities which this LERTA would delay, eliminate, or cause other millage increases during each of the 5 years of the LERTA. The problem with this logic is that it's based on spending the same money 5 times. You can't fund $2.2 million of new costs over 5 years with just the $600,000 lost from the LERTA. Ultimately those priorities will cost $600,000 every year, forever and continuing forever. Funding for the $200,000 for the first year's additions will need to continue for the 2nd through 6th years, plus funding for the $160,000 for the 2nd year's additions need to continue in the 3rd through 6th years, and so on, and those moneys won't be found by rejecting the LERTA. They're two separate things.
That's why Mr. Saul's amazing spreadsheet is so important. Work out the details yourself with even a simplified model and you would instantly recognize the fallacy of the board member's explanation and a 2nd member's seemingly nodding approval.
For me, the key question is whether a project like this would go forward even without public subsidy-- not whether or not the project itself is a good one. And yes, I absolutely agree that the spreadsheets put together by Mr. Saul are extremely useful and a great resource for the community when interested in understanding the district's budget.
The board might be regretting cutting the tax increase last year as much as they did.
Back then, I spoke to them twice, once about the spreadsheet itself, and another time as they were cutting the millage from the indexed amount of about 6% to 5% and then to 3%. I mentioned then how Upper Merion had a decade long fiscal plan that built a new HS.
EPSD's current spreadsheet currently projects deficits in all 5 years projected consuming nearly all of the existing $20+- million fund balance in 5 years, even with a full index millage increase.
It's hard to imagine what they are thinking about even for a more modest HS project, or if they still even think any part of one is needed.
I won't rehash here the details of what happened both before and after my first budget on the board in 1990, when the super initially proposed a 26% (15.6/60.4) millage increase. But time to recover financially delayed the projects more than anything else.
I do recall that as a new EPSD board member, you voted to rescind EPSD's earlier approval of the Hamilton Crossings TIFF, which has cost the district close to $10 million.
I believe that it was just before the County's vote on it, when they rejected it.
I was very vocal against the HC TIFF in 2013-14, even writing several articles for Patch, one titled something like "HC- Will EPSD be caught holding the bag alone?" since with no or little millage on the table from HC host Lower Macungie Township, EPSD taxpayers essentially funded the TIFF which ultimately enriched the previous owners of the allegedly damaged ground.
IMHO, this one was actually a much closer call - unlike HC, the Emmaus site for the apartments as it exists today really is a nuisance. The HC site wasn't bothering anyone. And here, the developer said that they would proceed anyway even without the LERTA.
I'll try posting my letter to EPSD from earlier this year which actually did support the Emmaus LERTA, pointing out the differences.
to EPSD, Feb 11, 2025:
Folks,
As some may know, I was very vocal against the Hamilton Crossings TIF. While they claimed that it was essential for mitigating the environmental damage from mining the site long ago, that was all self-contained and not a hazard to anyone. That TIF essentially enriched the landowners by allowing the developer to overpay for the land by just about that amount of the TIF. If push came to shove, they would have done the project anyway. In the meantime, EPSD will lose more than $10 million of revenue under the TIF, which Mr. Saul mentioned during part of his explanation about the expected 96.2% real estate tax collection.
On the other hand, the property in Emmaus is truly a nuisance to the community. The benefit for this project may be greater to the community with 1/20th of the cost to EPSD for HC TIF. So, I think I could go along with it, following Dr. Levinson's remarks. It's a close call.
Finally, I do want to mention a funding fallacy which was promulgated during last night's (2/10/2025) school board meeting, One member attempted to describe all of the budget priorities which this LERTA would delay, eliminate, or cause other millage increases during each of the 5 years of the LERTA. The problem with this logic is that it's based on spending the same money 5 times. You can't fund $2.2 million of new costs over 5 years with just the $600,000 lost from the LERTA. Ultimately those priorities will cost $600,000 every year, forever and continuing forever. Funding for the $200,000 for the first year's additions will need to continue for the 2nd through 6th years, plus funding for the $160,000 for the 2nd year's additions need to continue in the 3rd through 6th years, and so on, and those moneys won't be found by rejecting the LERTA. They're two separate things.
That's why Mr. Saul's amazing spreadsheet is so important. Work out the details yourself with even a simplified model and you would instantly recognize the fallacy of the board member's explanation and a 2nd member's seemingly nodding approval.
For me, the key question is whether a project like this would go forward even without public subsidy-- not whether or not the project itself is a good one. And yes, I absolutely agree that the spreadsheets put together by Mr. Saul are extremely useful and a great resource for the community when interested in understanding the district's budget.
The board might be regretting cutting the tax increase last year as much as they did.
Back then, I spoke to them twice, once about the spreadsheet itself, and another time as they were cutting the millage from the indexed amount of about 6% to 5% and then to 3%. I mentioned then how Upper Merion had a decade long fiscal plan that built a new HS.
EPSD's current spreadsheet currently projects deficits in all 5 years projected consuming nearly all of the existing $20+- million fund balance in 5 years, even with a full index millage increase.
It's hard to imagine what they are thinking about even for a more modest HS project, or if they still even think any part of one is needed.
I won't rehash here the details of what happened both before and after my first budget on the board in 1990, when the super initially proposed a 26% (15.6/60.4) millage increase. But time to recover financially delayed the projects more than anything else.
Excellent consistency on your part!
I do recall that as a new EPSD board member, you voted to rescind EPSD's earlier approval of the Hamilton Crossings TIFF, which has cost the district close to $10 million.
I believe that it was just before the County's vote on it, when they rejected it.
I was very vocal against the HC TIFF in 2013-14, even writing several articles for Patch, one titled something like "HC- Will EPSD be caught holding the bag alone?" since with no or little millage on the table from HC host Lower Macungie Township, EPSD taxpayers essentially funded the TIFF which ultimately enriched the previous owners of the allegedly damaged ground.
IMHO, this one was actually a much closer call - unlike HC, the Emmaus site for the apartments as it exists today really is a nuisance. The HC site wasn't bothering anyone. And here, the developer said that they would proceed anyway even without the LERTA.
I'll try posting my letter to EPSD from earlier this year which actually did support the Emmaus LERTA, pointing out the differences.