Supervisors discuss placing 0.25% earned‑income tax on ballot to fund open space; questions raised on scope and timing

Treasurer Kevin Barron presented the board with a proposal to place a 0.25 percentage‑point increase in the earned‑income tax (EIT) on a referendum to finance long‑term open‑space acquisition and maintenance. Barron said the proposal would create a dedicated revenue stream restricted to open space, describing the modest direct cost to a typical earner: "A resident earning $60,000 per year would pay $150 annually, less than $13 per month," and noting the revenue could be used to pay down existing open‑space debt or to acquire new parcels when opportunities arise.

During extended discussion, board members and committee representatives asked for legal and operational clarifications. Staff and counsel explained that a portion of EIT receipts (the presenter cited a statutory constraint during the talk, referenced in the transcript as "Act 5‑29") must be used only for open‑space purposes; board members repeatedly noted that up to 25% of revenue may be used for maintenance and improvement of existing open space, with the bulk required for acquisition or debt retirement. The board asked for further details about which outstanding bonds or debt service qualify, inventory of priority parcels, the potential to pause collections if no acquisition opportunities exist, and the outreach strategy needed for a referendum (including whether a primary or general election should be targeted).

Several supervisors urged a careful public‑engagement plan before assuming a referendum this November and asked staff to return with a policy framework, legal confirmation about referendum timing, and a more detailed fiscal model. Open‑space committee members urged a strategic plan tied to priority parcels and trails improvements. No final board vote was taken; staff agreed to supply additional written clarifications and outreach planning for a future meeting.

Note on transcript clarity: the presenter referenced a statute verbally as "Act 5‑29" during the discussion; the township solicitor and staff agreed to provide the precise statutory citations and the formal interpretation in writing as a follow‑up.