By Lea Kahn, Staff Writer
Township Council passed a resolution Tuesday that clears the way to place a public question on the April 17 school board election ballot seeking voter approval for a 9-cent increase in the municipal property tax rate for 2012.
The 9-cent property tax rate increase would be in addition to a 5-cent property tax rate increase proposed in the $42.3 million 2012 municipal budget. The referendum question is needed to allow township officials to exceed the state-imposed 2-percent cap on the tax levy.
Increasing the municipal property tax rate by 5 cents from 84 cents to 89 cents per $100 of assessed value means the owner of a house assessed at the township average of $160,282 would pay $1,431 in municipal property taxes, or $81 more than the 2011 tax bill.
The 9-cent cap increase means that property owner would pay $144 more in 2012, in addition to the $81 increase resulting from the 5-cent property tax rate hike.
The total tax rate increase would be $225 on a house assessed at $160,282.
While overall spending in the 2012 municipal budget is proposed to increase by 1.14 percent from $41.8 million to $42.3 million the need for a referendum to increase the tax levy is unrelated to spending, according to township officials.
The issue is that to comply with the 2-percent cap on the increase to the property tax rate, it would be necessary to plug in $4.87 million in surplus funds into the budget as a source of revenue. It would wipe out most of the available surplus fund of $5 million, leaving about $154,000 in surplus funds.
Municipal Manager Richard Krawczun said it would not be possible to “regenerate” that amount of money to be included as a source of revenue in the 2013 municipal budget. It might be possible to regenerate $2.6 million, but not the entire amount that is proposed to be used a revenue source for the 2012 budget.
The 9-cent property tax rate increase would generate $2.2 million.
Money from the surplus fund is considered a source of revenue for the budget. The surplus fund is the result of excess anticipated revenue, which means more money was raised than expected. It could be the result of property owners’ payment of past-due property taxes, as well as more money that was paid in fees or permits than anticipated.
Mr. Krawczun said the proposed 2012 budget does not include personnel layoffs, noting that since 2007, the number of municipal employees had dropped from 213 to 197. This includes the addition of five emergency medical technicians in 2009 to the existing staff of four EMTs. The township operates its own emergency medical service, instead of relying on an outside provider.
Depending on the fate of the referendum question, residential households might have to pay directly for garbage collection, rather than have it included in their municipal property tax bill, Mr. Krawczun said.
If voters approve the 9-cent tax rate increase, Lawrence Township would continue to include municipal garbage collection in the budget. The proposed 2012 budget pegs the cost at $2.7 million, including pickup and disposal fees. If the voters reject the referendum question, then other options to collect garbage would have to be explored.
When Township Council asked Mr. Krawczun for alternatives to seeking a 9-cent property tax rate increase last month, he outlined several options that ranged from eliminating the Recreation Department and Emergency Medical Services to laying off 36 employees from several municipal departments.
Those options were dropped, however, when Township Council balked at the prospect of layoffs that would have included eight police officers, four employees in the Department of Public Works, and the elimination of the Recreation Department and the Emergency Medical Services unit.

