COG 2025 program plan prompts debate in Harris supervisors over EV charging, equipment purchases and fund balances

Harris Township supervisors spent an extended portion of their July 8 meeting reviewing the Center Region Council of Governments’ draft 2025 program plan and raising concerns about capital priorities, equipment purchases and COG fund balances.

The board examined individual line items and alternatives rather than approving broad directions. Supervisors questioned a $100,000 capital estimate to install EV charging at the COG building, arguing the township lacks a fleet of electric vehicles and that repaving the COG parking lot might be a higher near‑term priority. One supervisor noted the draft included a minimum requirement that two electric vehicles be in place before the project is completed, while others said the private sector may better supply charging infrastructure and urged caution until fleet needs are confirmed.

A separate discussion covered a proposed $18,000 capital purchase to upgrade iPads used by Center Region code inspectors. Some supervisors suggested inspectors could hot‑link to company‑issued phones rather than buying new cellular‑equipped tablets and asked staff to justify the need, emphasizing that the purchase is funded from COG budgets rather than direct township funds.

Other items discussed included a $13,000 request to continue funding an AmeriCorps sustainability position (supported by the board), a roughly $50,700 set‑aside for consulting on transportation funding applications, and a modest ($3,042) contribution proposed for a passenger rail access feasibility study. Supervisors pressed for ridership data before committing to the rail study and asked MPO and transit partners for supporting justification.

Refuse and recycling items included approval in principle for a temporary assistant position to handle questions during a new program rollout and a $10,000 contract to remove or replace legacy refuse containers; supervisors asked that the purchase and removal be coordinated to maximize recycling and avoid unnecessary landfill disposal. The board also debated a proposed food‑waste drop‑off program, expressing concerns about DEP rules, collection frequency, and whether vehicle miles for collection might offset greenhouse gas benefits.

Parks and recreation staffing proposals drew sustained scrutiny. Supervisors questioned a proposed program specialist position with estimated personnel costs around $119,369 and asked staff for program‑by‑program attendance and cost‑recovery information before approving additional employees. One supervisor aggregated COG fund balances to about $7.9 million and urged consideration of a formal fund‑balance policy and prioritizing capital needs rather than automatic program expansion.

The board did not vote to adopt or reject the COG program plan at the meeting; supervisors asked staff to collect additional data and deferred formal consensus comments until their next meeting.