Upper Providence forum outlines November open-space tax, residents press questions on permanence and use of funds

Upper Providence Township held an informational forum where Natural Lands staff and outside speakers explained a proposed November ballot referendum that would raise the township earned-income tax by 0.0006 (six hundredths of 1%) and the real-estate tax by 0.5 mills (50¢ per $1,000 of assessed value) to fund acquisition, planning, improvement and maintenance of open space.

Natural Lands’ Kate Grama read the ballot language and walked through example calculations for residents: using the township median earned income, presenters estimated the proposed EIT increase would cost a median earner roughly $85 annually, and the 0.5-mill property tax would increase the typical residential bill by about $63 a year. Grama emphasized the proposal uses a blended approach so renters, seniors and commercial properties are affected differently.

The forum featured three presenters who offered operational examples and data. Catherine Ricardo, assistant township manager of East Whiteland Township, described her municipality’s experience creating a dedicated open-space program and placing a similar referendum on its ballot. Ricardo said East Whiteland issued a $10,000,000 bond to secure an urgent purchase and used county and state grants to supplement local money; she also underscored the role of an Open Space Committee in reviewing proposals and providing transparent public votes before acquisitions.

Crystal Gilchrist, project director for the Perkiomen watershed mapping and flood-mitigation effort, framed preservation as a watershed and stormwater strategy. "It's a pay now or pay later scenario," Gilchrist said, arguing that upstream volume control and maintaining undeveloped lands reduce downstream flooding, protect groundwater recharge and avoid the higher long-term public costs associated with development.

Bill Hartman, trails and open-space planning manager for the Montgomery County Planning Commission, summarized a county "Return on Environment" study showing the county has roughly 46,000 acres of protected open space. Hartman said the study attributes about $2.8 billion in added housing value to proximity to protected open space—roughly $11,300 per home—and estimated about $48 million in additional annual tax revenue tied to those premiums. The study also estimated roughly $160 million in total economic impact, more than 1,500 jobs supported by protected land, and measurable environmental and health-related cost savings from recreation and ecosystem services, Hartman said.

Residents used the Q&A to press presenters on implementation detail and limits. Kristen Chapman and others pointed to errors or inconsistencies in printed materials (for example a 0.33‑mill figure that organizers acknowledged was a typo) and asked whether "protected" land would be permanently preserved. Presenters repeatedly advised that permanence depends on the legal instrument used: when state (DCNR) or county grant funds are involved, grant guidelines typically require a deed covenant or conservation easement to ensure perpetual protection. Jeff Grace, the township director of planning present at the event, said municipalities should adopt clear acquisition criteria in their prospectus or PROS (parks, recreation and open-space) plan to guide the open-space committee.

Several speakers asked what happens if a suitable parcel becomes available and the township has only modest annual revenue. Ricardo and Grama said funds must accrue in a dedicated account and that municipalities often use bond financing or match county and state grants to leverage local dollars for larger purchases. Organizers confirmed that up to 25% of revenues may be used for maintenance and that unspent funds roll forward in the dedicated account until used.

Multiple residents raised past land-sales—most prominently the county sale of a tract known locally as Park House—as examples of opportunities that went to private buyers. Presenters and planning staff said large, high‑value parcels can exceed a single township's immediate purchasing capacity and that zoning, prior county decisions and appraisals influence what municipalities can acquire or save through negotiation.

Supporters at the forum argued the revenue would give the township a tool to preserve high‑value parcels and to leverage matching grants; opponents or skeptical residents asked for more clarity on map-based priorities, the township’s official assessed-value assumptions and whether the fund would meaningfully prevent development when a deep-pocketed developer offers above-appraisal dollars.

No vote was taken at the forum. Organizers urged residents to review the township's official materials, use the posted tax calculators with their own assessed values and check the official map and PROS plan for candidate parcels; the referendum will appear on the November ballot if certified by township supervisors. If the measure passes, town supervisors and the open-space committee will move next to adopt program guidelines, property-selection criteria and the legal instruments (easement or covenant language) required to secure permanent protection when matching grant rules require it.

(Quotes and figures are drawn from presenters' remarks at the Natural Lands forum; numerical estimates reported here are presented by those speakers and attributed in the text.)