Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tax‑collector location, insurance and park funding spark debate at Lehigh Township meeting
Summary
Supervisors and residents debated whether the elected tax collector should be required to carry insurance when collecting taxes at the municipal building and weighed hiring a recreation consultant versus using existing park funds for projects; Board agreed to consult the insurer for guidance and to continue discussion on recreation planning.
Lehigh Township supervisors spent substantial time on March 11 discussing liability and logistics for the elected tax collector collecting payments at the Township building and fielding a broad public debate over recreation priorities and the use of available recreation funds.
Supervisor Cindy Miller raised concerns about exposure if residents come to the municipal building to pay taxes, asking whether the tax collector should carry primary insurance so the Township’s policy would be excess rather than primary. Attorney David Backenstoe advised the Board to check with the Township’s insurer to confirm coverage for an elected tax collector using municipal space; he said an indemnification agreement is possible but likely unnecessary. The Board asked Manager Alice Rehrig to contact the insurance carrier for guidance before imposing new requirements.
On parks and recreation, Recreation Chair Sandy Hopkins said she had no recent meeting but asked for complete account balances. Resident Paul Nikisher and others queried how recreation funds are managed; staff reported one fund (developer contributions) is roughly $65,000 and another (Township capital for recreation) about $95,000. Residents and Rec Board members debated hiring a recreation consultant (estimated locally at about $50,000) versus spending directly on projects such as playgrounds and tennis‑court work, with multiple speakers noting typical playground costs in the $120,000–$250,000 range and that Jaindl contributions tied to future development could add to available funds. Some speakers urged surveying the community to define priorities before committing consultant funds.
Why it matters: Decisions about tax‑collector logistics involve municipal liability and access to taxpayer services; the recreation discussion frames how limited local dollars and potential developer contributions will be prioritized across parks projects that residents value.
Next steps: Staff will consult the insurer about coverage for tax‑collection at the municipal building. The Board scheduled further discussion of farmland preservation and will place recreation planning back on the agenda, and residents urged more public engagement and cost estimates before large commitments.
