Upper Allen commissioners advance draft open-space referendum amid debate over funding and map accuracy

Upper Allen Township commissioners voted to move forward with a draft ordinance that would send an open-space preservation question to voters in November 2026, but the board and residents clashed over how the program would be funded, which parcels are eligible, and whether the public has enough detail to decide.

The draft ordinance as read by the township solicitor would ask voters whether to impose "an additional earned income tax at the rate of one‑tenth of 1%" to finance acquisition of open space, conservation easements, recreation lands and development rights, according to the solicitor’s reading of the ballot language. Solicitor Josh told the board the ordinance is intentionally broad so a future land-preservation review board would retain multiple options if the referendum passes.

Residents and commissioners pressed for specifics. Paul Brenamman, who identified himself as a Stumpstown Road property owner, asked: "How can you ask for a tax increase when you only ask a general question about preserving land?" He and others said the township still lacks an inventory of eligible parcels and clarity on whether parcels already in county programs (ACE/ASA) would be compensated.

Laura Brown, who said she runs a neighboring township’s land-preservation program, urged prompt action and warned of rising easement costs: "We are seeing easement values go up... we just approved a property last year that was over $15,000 [easement value] an acre," she said, arguing delay will increase cost.

Supporters cited Silver Spring Township’s 2013 referendum as a model: commissioners said Silver Spring’s program later conserved roughly 1,384 acres and that pairing township and county programs can accelerate protection. Opponents and cautious commissioners urged more homework on funding methods and eligibility. One commissioner summarized the tradeoff: waiting could reduce costs to voters’ information needs but risks losing developable parcels in the meantime.

Map accuracy and public outreach were central themes. Several residents and one commissioner said the Natural Lands "opportunities" map posted to the township website included small parcels and properties already protected; the board voted to instruct Natural Lands to revise the map to remove parcels under 10 acres, to clarify which lands already have conservation easements or deed restrictions, and to show township parks and ACE-preserved lands distinctly.

Commissioners also debated the funding mechanism. The solicitor and staff noted that in Pennsylvania more townships that have used open‑space referendums have chosen the earned-income tax (EIT); one commissioner said a pure-EIT approach maximizes the chance of passage based on historical patterns, while others advocated a split between EIT and property tax to spread the burden more equitably. The board directed staff to prepare revised ordinance language and financial estimates reflecting a potential split so commissioners could review a revised draft before the next meeting.

What happens next: staff and the solicitor will post a revised ordinance before the July 15 meeting; commissioners discussed advertising the revised draft then, with the goal of submitting the measure to the county elections office in early August so it can appear on the Nov. 2026 ballot. The board authorized Natural Lands to update the opportunities map and set a timetable for returning with clarified language and financial projections.

The public forum during the meeting featured multiple residents urging either expedited placement on the ballot or additional specificity in the ordinance and funding plan. The board did not adopt final ballot language at the meeting; commissioners said they expect a revised draft to be posted ahead of the July 15 meeting and that staff will provide further fiscal detail.