Peters Township Council approves .1-mill tax increase

Peters Township Council approved a .1-mill real estate tax increase to go along with adopting the municipality’s 2018 operating budget and capital improvement program.
Both measures at the Dec. 11 meeting passed 6-1, with council member Gary Stiegel Jr. voting against each.
The new tax rate is 1.622 mills, with the average Peters property owner paying about $34 more next year, according to township manager Paul Lauer. The increase, which represents $1 for every $10,000 of a property’s assessed value, is needed to offset the additional debt service the township took on with the purchase of half of the former Rolling Hills Country Club property, he said.
“In addition to that, council has expressed a desire to have sufficient funds available to maintain existing facilities,” Lauer said. “Our buildings are aging, and as they age, the mechanical systems, in particular, need attention.”
He estimated the tax increase to generate an extra $140,000 for the township in 2018.
As adopted, the 2018 budget calls for total expenditures of $22.6 million, with $19.2 million in projected revenues.
“That gap, in part, is a reflection of some of the bond money that is left, that will be spent on improvements related to Rolling Hills Park, as well as the final payments on the fire truck,” Lauer said about the department’s $1 million purchase of a new aerial-ladder vehicle.
The township’s intent in buying about 90 acres of the former country club is to provide a series of recreational amenities, while Peters Township School District purchased the other half for construction of a new high school.
Lauer further explained the budget figures:
“The revenue numbers are generally budgeted on a very conservative basis. The expenditures include a number of projects, some of which we may well not get to next year, and that gap closes every year.”
Frank Arcuri, council chairman, continued to express concern about the disparity.
“That gap is really bothering me,” he said. “And I can foresee it potentially getting worse – hopefully, I’m wrong – just because of Rolling Hills and the money that we have to spend before anything even gets built there. We’re talking roads and reconfiguration of entrances and things of that nature.”
Arcuri said that if taxes need to be increased, he would prefer smaller increments spread out over time rather than a large hit all at once.
“Hopefully, with a lot of luck, we’ll be able to keep taxes relatively consistently low, like we’ve done over the years,” he said.
Ronald Boocks, a Bebout Road resident, told council he has similar concerns.
“I see the deficit growing larger as time goes on, and you haven’t even started with Rolling Hills,” he said. “I don’t know whether we should have bitten that chunk of property up and taken it or not. I have some real concerns about whether we can afford it in the end.”
He expressed the need to limit local spending, “particularly when Congress is saying, ‘We’re not going to let you deduct your property taxes, your local property taxes, your local state taxes. We’re not going to let you do that anymore,’ and a bunch of additional loophole reductions.”
Jim Berquist, council vice chairman, defended the property acquisition.
“While adding Rolling Hills Park is an expense, it also adds a large value to our balance sheet, with future uses and the need for our comprehensive recreational plan forecast,” he said, with regard to more recreational space. “So we’ve fulfilled that need and, in essence, that obligation.”