Upper Allen forum features farmer testimony and Natural Lands’ plan for open‑space referendum

A township forum on a proposed Upper Allen open‑space referendum featured a presentation from the land trust Natural Lands and testimony from a longtime local farmer, while the board reiterated it would not vote at the meeting and could take action at its July 1 regular meeting.

Kyle Rose, director of land protection at Natural Lands, told commissioners and residents the organization was hired to assess feasibility and draft referendum materials. “We are one of the oldest and largest land trusts in Pennsylvania,” Rose said, describing Natural Lands’ work preserving easements and public preserves since the 1950s.

Rose walked the forum through the statutory framework that allows municipalities to put funding questions to voters, noting earlier enabling legislation from 1968 and later amendments that expanded tools available to local governments. He said the state law allows townships to use up to 25% of referendum revenue for stewardship, planning or on‑the‑ground maintenance.

On funding, Rose presented illustrative estimates drawn from county tax data. He said Upper Allen’s current earned‑income‑tax (EIT) base is typically 0.5% and that, in one scenario presented to the forum, the measure could generate roughly $895,000 a year for open‑space preservation and cost the average EIT payer about $130 a year (approximately $10.85 per month). Rose and other presenters used different framings of potential rate changes during the presentation; the forum record contains inconsistent references to a proposed 0.1% increase and to larger EIT scenarios, and township staff would need to confirm final ballot language and the exact tax rate before any ordinance is adopted.

Rose also showed a draft conservation‑opportunities map that highlights unprotected parcels larger than 10 acres, primary conservation priorities such as riparian corridors and steep slopes, existing protected lands and local trails. He said the map is designed to help the township identify priorities — whether that is farmland near existing preserves, corridors that reduce flood risk, or parcels that would link trails.

During public comment, a local farmer introduced in remarks as Mr. rottable delivered a first‑person plea about farming pressures in the region. “I’ve been a dairy farmer for 51 years,” he said, describing family tenure on more than 200 acres and saying he chose a preservation path late in life to keep his land from being developed. He urged residents and officials to consider the long‑term loss if farmland is replaced by warehouses or other development.

Panelists and board members discussed protections already in place on township lands. One commissioner observed that only two parcels on the map appeared to have recorded conservation easements or deed restrictions; Natural Lands noted that protection can also stem from deed restrictions tied to prior grant funding and that publicly accessible open‑space purchased with referendum funds would be required by state law to remain open in perpetuity in most cases.

The forum was informational only; the moderator reiterated that the board would not vote that night. Natural Lands outlined procedural milestones for a referendum process — introducing and advertising an ordinance, adopting it at least 13 Tuesdays before a chosen election for tax measures, and registering with the county board of elections (presenters cited an August 4 county registration date for an EIT/property‑tax ballot question) — and said a final public information meeting would typically be held about two weeks before election day.

Next steps noted at the forum: township staff and commissioners must refine the ballot language and confirm the precise tax rate and revenue assumptions; Natural Lands’ materials remain draft and subject to revision before any ordinance or formal vote.