Small Games of Chance Resolution

At the McSherrystown Borough Council meeting on April 24th, I presented to the Council, for a third time, two Resolutions for adoption. These resolutions had been tabled in the past, with opposition from some parties on Council as well as the Mayor.  While I respect their opinions on these matters and have the utmost regard for the democratic process, I feel it is my duty to inform the citizens of McSherrystown, as well as those everywhere in the state of Pennsylvania, why I feel so strongly about these resolutions.

Today I would like to discuss the one that did gain support and was adopted, concerning the Small Games of Chance Bill (HB 290).  In the presented resolution which I authored, I call for the elimination of the Aggregate Prize Limits which are currently detrimental to the service clubs and the community. At this time, many of our area clubs such as the Eagles, the Moose, the Home Associations, the Republican Club and others have experienced fines and suspensions, and have had to close their doors for months at a time, because they exceeded the current prize limits of $35,000 a week. When they are closed by the PLCB for these suspensions, it is the community that suffers.

When these clubs and fire companies like SAVES here in McSherrystown sell "jars", have raffles or bingo, they have a specific amount of money they pay to the winner. The rest of the money is collected and 70% of these funds (after the first $40,000, which can be used to cover operational expenses) go straight back into the community through documented charitable donations. McSherrystown has benefited from this when the Police Department received funds for the new speed sign, which helps alert drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit and raises awareness to safety in school zones and other parts of town. Delone Catholic High School received a majority of the funds needed for their new scoreboard from such funds, which are generated by people in the community participating in the small games of chance.  SAVES, being a community organization, is allowed to raise funds for their efforts by having small games of chance at their functions. Over half of their funding comes from such activities, however, they are limited by the same laws as the service organizations.  The fundings generated by these small games of chance have helped the community without burdening the local government budgets or pulling from the taxpayers.

When people in the community support these efforts by patronizing such events, it is my opinion that it is their right to spend their money where they want, knowing that it is directly helping the local community and infrastructure.  It is beyond the proper powers of our government to tell these people that they cannot do so, or to limit their participation by setting limits on the organizations. By removing the prize limits, clubs and organizations would be able to generate more funds for charitable endeavors...can anyone explain to me why this would not be a good thing?  In a time when government funds are scarce and resources are thin from a struggling economy, it makes sense to allow those in the community to support their own purposes and interests by pooling their money together. If they choose to do so in a gaming fashion, so be it. 

Are we limiting the amount of profits that can be generated by big-business casinos in this state?  It is estimated that casinos generate over $1.3 billion in tax revenues a year in Pennsylvania (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/09/25/for_massachusetts_lessons_in_pennsylvanias_casino_experience/).  The state legislation has backed and even safe-guarded the interests of the casinos for this very reason.  I will say that, when properly utilized as they are supposed to be, these funds do a great service to the residents of our state.  However, this is largely due to the fact that the state legislation has the final say over the allocation of these resources, which I will comment, has NOT always gone towards the endeavors for which they were originally intended.  The reason we have such an issue with the small games of chance limits is obvious...the casinos want that revenue for their own profit and the state wants control over the taxes produced when the casinos get those profits.  When a service organization is allowed to allocate their own funds to the community, it takes the power over that money out of the hands of the state. Therefore, limits and suspensions create opportunities to siphon some of the funds that would be kept here in our area to fund our projects and infrastructure, and they instead go to line the casino owners' pockets and to fill the state coffers, which we then have to petition the state for our share.

I want to thank the McSherrystown Borough Council for supporting my legislation, which passed by a vote of 6-1.  I would also like to extend my appreciate to the Council of Fairfield, who had passed both of my resolutions at their March meeting.  As the Legislative Committee Chairman for the Adams County Boroughs Association, I will be calling for a vote on these resolutions at the upcoming meeting in May. If adopted, I will be forwarding them to the State Congress and the Pennsylvania State Boroughs Association for consideration. It is my hope that we will gain enough support for the change I have proposed to eliminate the aggregate prize limits, and allow local citizens the ability to contribute to their community through small games of chance without restriction.

David "Scotty" Bolton

McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen

councilmanbolton@gmail.com

717-634-8726

All Things Important to The People...

Representative Government works for The People when EVERYONE is represented. When I first ran for McSherrystown Borough Council, I did so because of the conversations I had with other residents. During those conversations, I discovered that the decisions that were being made by the members of Council were not completely representative of The People with whom I spoke.  Before I joined the Council, all votes on subjects passed with unanimity, and there were very few discussions about what The People thought, and more about what the Council thought.  I will concede, as it was stated at our last Council meeting, that The People elected us to be their voice and to make decisions, but I find it extremely disturbing when I bring the voice of The People, to whom I have spoken at lengths, to the Council and do not receive their support on those subjects.  I am a full supporter of the democratic process, and if a vote is defeated, or does not receive a “second” to even come up for a vote, or when a subject is tabled due to “lack of interest” by the Council to pursue it, although I feel the voice of The People has not prevailed, I do feel that I have done my best to represent them and bring their concerns before the Council, and to defend their issues to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so for as long as The People will let me!

That being said, what have I done for The People of McSherrystown in the past two months? 

Leash Law:  I was contacted by several citizens who were concerned about dogs not being controlled by their owners.  They wanted to see a Leash Law imposed for dogs on public streets and lands.  I did my research, spoke with the appropriate governmental agencies, and even employed the assistance of Rep. Dan Moul’s office to see what could be done on a local level to have dogs in public leashed.  In short, I discovered that the Borough WAS allowed to pass such a law, which could be enforced by the Police Department and the District Magistrate.  Opposition on Council said the DM would not enforce such a law, from their personal conversations.  I held that it was his prerogative whether he wanted to enforce it, but it is negligent for us as Elected Legislators to ignore the requests of our citizens.  I was also told that we should not pass a law just because ONE PERSON had a complaint.  I believe that when you hear one person who is brave enough to speak out, there are many others in silent agreement, and those are The People that I went out to speak to about this topic, and could find only ONE PERSON not on Council who opposed such a law.  I also believe that, if the Borough is going to pass an unconstitutional law telling you what kind of furniture you have on your porch, in the name of safety (if you remember, they backed up their stances by saying that some furniture could POSSIBLY become infested with rodents and bugs, even though we already had a law on the books to enforce this situation), then it follows that a dog not on a leash is potentially more dangerous than a couch sitting on someone’s porch!  After three meetings of discussion, I brought my Amendment to the Ordinance up for a vote, and received NO SECOND.  Not one member of Council believed that physical control of dogs in public was necessary for the safety of our citizens.

ACBA Resolutions:  I authored two resolutions, after speaking with The People of McSherrystown and other municipal leaders of Adams County. 

--The first would eliminate the limit of how much local service, civic and charitable organizations can raise for the community through the use of Small Games of Chance (House Bill 290, page 6, Line 2-4, Section 302).  As you may know, the State Government and the PLCB limits, fines and suspends the licenses of such clubs as the Moose, the Home Association, the Republican Club, the Eagles and others due to these limits.  The only thing this accomplishes is to take money that is generated by The People out of the community.  This money is used to fund public lands, to provide for police and fire service needs, to support school programs, and much more.  If the money belongs to The People, and they want to use it to support their community through the Small Games of Chance at their local clubs, then it holds to be unconstitutional for any government to deny them. 

--The second resolution would support Senate Bill 65, which would allow local municipalities to decide on issues they want to put on the voting ballots via referendums.  I believe that this is the cornerstone of our democracy; to poll the voices of the voters on important issues.  When I brought this up at the Council meeting, it was tabled, and opposition stated that people vote for us as Council members to make those decisions, and that putting referendums on the ballot would “confuse people” because “most aren’t smart enough to research the topics”.  I cannot disagree more to this rebuttal!  I believe that The People know more than this person thinks, and that if it were known by The People that this was said in a Council meeting by an elected official, there would be a definite backlash.  The People deserve to have their voices heard, and what better way to state what they want than to have them vote on it while voting for the leaders they believe will defend their views?

Although I have the support of the Adams County Boroughs Association (ACBA) and several other Boroughs in Adams County, who have or plan to pass my legislation on a local and county level, and in light of the fact that the Pennsylvania State Boroughs Association (PSAB) is considering both resolutions for adoption on a state level, I am having difficulty gathering support from my own Council.  I hope that YOU will make your voice heard by calling the Borough Office at 717-637-1838 and tell them you support my resolutions, or by attending the next Council meeting on Wednesday, April 24^th at 7pm at the Borough Office and telling the Council to let your voice be heard!

Hanover Regional Economic Development Committee:  Being assigned to the Steering Committee, I was happy to reach out to community leaders to join us in our efforts to bring more businesses and jobs to the area.  I am excited about the direction we are taking with our efforts, and it is essential to everyone’s benefit for us to find businesses who will come to our area and create more jobs for our citizens and thus better the living conditions for everyone.  I was honored to be able to recruit Tommy Hufnagle (Winner’s Circle owner) and Troy Wentz (Business Manager for Hanover Public School District) to the Steering Committee last week.  I believe that Tommy has his finger on the pulse of culture in Hanover, as he has big plans to bring a true musical venue to the area with his expansions of the Winner’s Circle.  Mr. Wentz will bring invaluable information to the Committee in formulating what courses could be implemented in the local school districts to support the businesses we currently have and also the ones we wish to attract.

York Waste Management agreement:  The Borough’s contract with York Waste has concluded its three year segment, and they have the right to extend the agreement under the same terms for two more years.  However, Council heard from Don Isabella that the company wished to only extend the residential service, as the commercial service is not profitable for them.  I argued that the original contract stated that it could be extended “under the same terms”, and by picking and choosing which part the company wanted to extend based on profitability was not in the interest of The People.  Why?  If the Borough only bids out the commercial part of the contract, it will not get as good an over-all rate as if both residential and commercial are bid.  Also, if you remember, York Waste petitioned the Council to limit the number of bags YOU were allowed to put out last year to three, because they were picking up “too much” and again, it wasn’t profitable for them.  This company has repeated shown that they are concerned more about their bottom line than they are about fulfilling the promises made in their bid contract.  When a Pro Athlete wants to change their contract in mid-stream, the cries go out that they are being self-centered and not being a team player.  I feel the same way about this contract, and I was very vocal at the last Council meeting that I am not in favor of continuing with any extension that is not in line with the original agreement.  As of the writing of this blog, York Waste has NOT replied by the deadline of last Friday to extend the full contract.  Council will vote at our next meeting to advertise bids for the next contract.  I am hopeful that we will be able to get local service at a comparable price who will put The People first!

There is so much more that I would love to discuss with you, but I see that I have gotten a bit long-winded, so I will save my other topics for the next blog.  Please call on me anytime; I'm always around!  Thank you once again for allowing me to represent YOU on the McSherrystown Borough Council, and I hope that you will support me in my re-election bid on May 21^st at the polls. 

David “Scotty” Bolton

McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen

717-634-8726

councilmanbolton@gmail.com

Busy First Month of 2013

Hope everyone had a great January. It sure has been tumultuous on the weather front. Similarly, we have had some very interesting events in local government. Let's get started...

McSherrystown Borough Council:

At the January 9th meeting, we were informed by Borough Manager Scott Cook that the state's Act 108, which is a disposal ban on computer supplies and equipment, has mandated that we can no longer dispose of these types of items in the regular recycling/garbage pick-up. They must be recycled through the types of e-Recycling program our Borough currently participates in, in conjunction with the York County Solid Waste Authority via Penn Township. If you have old computer monitors, towers, etc. that you need to recycle, please contact the Borough Office for drop-off times and locations. You can also speak to one of the area computer repair businesses who will often recycle them into usable units again.

We were informed of a sewer back-up issue on N. 2nd Street by a resident there. We contacted USG, who had done our camera work for the Sanitary Sewer Maintenance for us just a few months ago, and they confirmed that there is a 75% blockage of the line beyond the curb, which the Borough has accepted responsibility to repair (usually it is the homeowner's responsibility for lines beyond the main tie-in). The first option explored was to use a type of "balloon" repair to seal the line, but with the extent of the damage, it will be necessary to dig up the line and physically repair it. As that part of the street is state (PennDot) road, we needed to apply for a permit to dig it up. We have done so, with the permit lasting two months starting April 15th. This will give us time after winter to get in there and do the work, but also PennDot plans to repave that road this summer, so doing the work at that time will save Borough money in retopping costs after the work is completed. Also, we were informed that the costs for the camera/line cleaning performed by USG was adjusted from $16,283.25 to $14,504.28 (eliminating duplicate fees), which saved us even more from the original budget of $25K for the project. Council approved the balance owed to be paid to the company ($8,141 was sent in December).

The Borough was able to collect over $10K in costs and fees coming from liens on two properties in town after Sheriff sales. These funds were in direct relation to municipal bills that were not paid by the owners after several years. There are still more liens of this sort that are outstanding, and the Borough is committed to collecting these amounts to offset the costs paid by the rest of the citizenry.

The Council discussed the Adams County Transportation Planning Organization's initiative to unit the Hanover Urban Area under a common MPO. Adams County municipalities outside of Gettysburg, Conewago Township and McSherrystown are in favor of having a County-specific MPO to apply for state and federal funding for various projects, however, the federal government, following the recommendations of the Census Bureau, has identified our very specific local area as one that will be expanding rapidly over the next 10 years. Although we cross county lines, the metropolitan area is recognized as being viable outside of county designations. Council voted unanimously to continue working with the Hanover Urban area in this pursuit, as it will serve to offer more success in acquiring grants and funds for local projects, such as the Hanover Area Regional Economic Development Committee, and as we already participate in Joint Bidding endeavors with these municipalities.

Adams County Boroughs Association:

At the January meeting, I was installed as Vice-President and Chairman of the Legislative Committee. I discussed my resolve to eliminate unfunded state and federal mandates on local municipalities, which ultimately cost our taxpayers more for programs that are not directly controlled at our local level.
Senate Resolution 323 of 2010 reviewed these mandates and made many suggestions as to the elimination of a bulk of the 6500 identified, many of which are archaic (some dating back to the early 1800s). One such mandate which the County Commissioners have done away with recently was the $12,000 yearly salary paid to the Jury Commissioner, who was in charge of picking jurors for the county. Since the 1970s, this job has been accomplished by computers, and thus, no person was needed to perform this task, although the County had been paying the salary each year.  I will have more on this as my Legislative Committee discusses other concerns, such as the Prevailing Wage mandate, which increases costs to local municipalities by 30-70% for work done by contract, such as road paving, construction, etc.  CLICK HERE to view the Task Force report and to review these mandates in detail.

I also discussed Senate Bill 65 for the 2013-2014 of the State Senate which is currently in the Local Government Committee. Memo #9 states this is an Act amending Title 53 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for local referenda.  As Senator Kim Ward writes, "Currently, there are few special circumstances where local governments can put measures on the ballot for voter approval or denial. Beyond increased debt proposals and special legislative provisions, these local governments do not have the ability to seek the will of the populace in large scale projects or measures. My legislation would broaden the ability of local governments to use voter referendums on items like tax increases, capital projects and ordinances."

I am fully in support of our voters' having the right to tell us directly on ballot how they feel we should direct our legislation on a local level.  Anyone wishing to contact Senator Ward can reach her at 717-787-6063.

I was also asked to serve as the alternate representative to the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs on the Resolutions and Policy Committee. This assignment will aid our own Legislative Committee to be more involved in state level concerns and representing local constituents' interests against those of the larger metropolitan areas of the state, namely Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

On February 6th, I will be a panelist for the Penn State Extension Workshop titled "Toss Your Hat in the Ring, How to Get Involved in Local Government".  With almost 20 people signed up to attend, they will get information on what to do if they would like to run for local office. Monica Dutko from the Adams County Office of Elections will also be there to answer questions. The cost is $25, and is good for those who want to get involved or as a refresher for those who are already serving.

I WILL ALSO BE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION THIS SPRING/FALL!  As you may know, I ran for and won a two year term in the write-in campaign from 2011. This year, I will be coming around to get my petitions signed and to get the news out about what I am doing to represent the people of McSherrystown. I would appreciate any and all support in my efforts for re-election. You can contact me directly if you would like to help with getting signatures for my petition. The video below explains the process, which begins today and runs through March 12th.

I hope that I am serving your interests, and as always, I am available to talk about any concerns you may have for the Borough, County or State. I have begun to use a new mobile video app on my Facebook page to keep everyone more informed in a more personal format. These posts are labeled for public viewing, so you can subscribe to my posts and be able to view it without adding me to your personal list. CLICK HERE for my Facebook address.  You can also email me directly....CLICK HERE TO EMAIL ME NOW.

Thank you for allowing me to be your voice to our local government!

For Liberty!

David "Scotty" Bolton
McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen

2012 Wrap-up and a Look Ahead to 2013

Welcome back, citizens and friends! I hope that everyone had a wonderful Christmas, a joyous holiday season and a great start to the New Year.  I have a few brief updates I wish to share with you concerning the matters involving your local government's activities over the past month.

Borough Budget and Taxes for the Coming Year

I am happy to report that I supported the 2013 budget, which passed unanimously, and is one of the few balanced budgets of the area municipalities without a tax increase for the fourth consecutive year. The 2013 balanced budget has $1,699,666 in revenues and expenditures.  With a millage of 3.1256, the owner of a home assessed at $100,000 will continue to pay $312.56 in municipal taxes.


The biggest "line item" to the budget is our Police Department, accounting for 24.1% of the total budget.  As reported in The Evening Sun, "One of the largest expenditures in the budget is for police protection at $410,704 for the four-man police department, which consists of a chief, sergeant and two patrolmen. In accordance with the contract, police wages were increased by 3.5 percent in 2013. McSherrystown's police had no salary increase in 2012.

For 2013, police salaries are set at $65,403 for the chief; $57,557 for the sergeant; 54,747 for one patrolman, $51,165 for the second patrolman. The budget also allows $19,000 for police overtime.  Another $3,500 is earmarked in Police Protection specifically for the salary of school crossing guards.

State mandated benefits for the police department are expected to cost a total of $110,982 in 2013, compared to the $101,688 spent for the same benefits in 2012. Benefits are also part of the police contract and are a non-negotiable item in the budget, said borough officials."

Let me first state that I believe our Police Department is second to none in protecting the people of McSherrystown, and in ideology, you cannot put a price on the safety of our citizens. That being said, the harsh reality is that this comfort comes with a price.  With estimations based on the increases to the benefits over the past year of $9,294 (+9.1%) and the salary increases of 3.5%, as well as upkeep, fuel and replacement of the vehicles and facilities, we will be faced with a minimum mandated increase of $18,862.38 in police protection expenditures for next year's budget. Some hard choices will have to be made in determining what our resources will support next year.  Will we accept a reduction in police coverage from our current force, will we look to consolidate or merge with another area department, or will we accept the inevitable tax increase that will be necessary to keep our current department intact?  These answers will ultimately come from the people of McSherrystown, should they choose to voice their opinions, lest they defer their rights and put the decision in the hands of the current Council. 

We must also realize that we have a debt to the Hanover Borough of $1,192,531 for upgrades to the public sewer system.  This agreement was penned by the Council in 2011, prior to my arrival.  McSherrystown paid $395,000 to Hanover in February 2012, and a payment of $132,000, which includes a 4% interest rate, is due in 2013.

This was a necessary expense due to the federal mandates regarding run-off concentrations into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  These mandates from the EPA and DEP, being greatly unfunded by the federal or state governments,  must be absorbed by the local taxpayers.  It should be noted that the next round of upgrades, which were originally projected to be needed in 10 years, are now estimated for consideration in 14 years, according to Ed Reed of the Hanover Borough.  Their foresight in the local needs due to growth and expansion will help us stave off the next round of upgrades for 4 more years, and I applaud their efforts.

Other large-item expenditures for 2013 are: 

Total administration - $206,556

     $58,870 for the borough supervisor's salary 

     $47,341 for the secretary/treasurer

     $9,768 for the wages of a part-time clerk/typist. 

Municipal buildings - $39,500

Fire Protection - $69,011 including $24,640 for the SAVES building fund project (Mortgage payments)

Zoning and Planning - $15,500

Highways - $188,437

Parks and Recreation - $22,250

Police Pensions - $59,882

Non-uniformed employee pensions - $65,650.

http://www.eveningsun.com/news/ci_22255611/mcsherystown-again-adopts-balanced-budget-no-tax-increase

Adams County Borough Association Representation

As some of you may already know, I have been elected by the ACBA to serve as the Vice-President for the coming year. The ACBA is a governmental group consisting of representatives from 13 boroughs including Abbottstown, Arendtsville, Bendersville, Biglerville, Bonneauville, Carroll Valley, East Berlin, Fairfield, Gettysburg, Littlestown, McSherrystown, New Oxford and York Springs.

My primary responsibilities will be to monitor state-level legislation via the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs and in coordination with our local representatives to the Capitol.  I have been asked to form and chair a Legislative Committee made up of elected officials from the various boroughs, and to review and recommend action on legislation that will affect the constituency of Adams County.  I will also be working to update the ACBA website to keep the citizens informed of our activities, in efforts to get more people involved with our local, county and state government dealings.

The Evening Sun reported, "There are about 6,500 unfunded state mandates that the municipalities are required to pay for despite having no state or federal funding coming in for those mandates," Bolton said. "If the state is mandating these things, they should be giving us at least some money to help pay for them. State mandates are a hardship on our local taxpayers."  One such mandate is the Prevailing Wage Law.

"According to the website www.commonwealthfoundation.org "Pennsylvania's Prevailing Wage Law was enacted in 1961 to protect construction workers from out-of-state competition, mandating that contractors pay the wages that 'prevail' in each region on all government construction projects more than $25,000. This limits the number of construction jobs in the state and forces state and local governments to unnecessarily spend more taxpayer money."
http://www.eveningsun.com/news/ci_22155017/mcsherrystown-councilman-eager-get-started-new-position?IADID=Search-www.eveningsun.com-www.eveningsun.com

I will say that I am not in favor of depending on the state or federal governments to fund our local activities.  However, I am opposed to them dictating what we must spend our money on without giving back some of the funds we send them in taxes each year to pay for those mandates.  This type of governmental regulation is exactly why I am so passionate about representing the people of McSherrystown at the county and state levels.  I believe if we are to take care of our matters at home, we must be able to retain our tax funds locally in lieu of sending them to the upper levels to be handed out to other areas of the state and country.  

One of the biggest travesties our local area faces currently is the Small Games of Chance Bill that will take effect in February.  This Law will limit the amount of community funds generated to support our local functions, such as SAVES, as well as contributions from local service and community organizations.  Without the ability to raise the necessary funds in our community, through our own choices of where to spend our own money, our local infrastructure will be drastically and detrimentally effected.  There are some in the state legislation who are pushing for a repeal of this Law, and I urge you to contact our local representatives at the state level to voice your concerns over this draconian infringement of your right to put your money back into your community!

Hanover Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades

I had the opportunity to tour the upgrades to the Hanover Wastewater Treatment Facility last month. I can say that they have done some great work, and I appreciate the explanations we received from Ed Reed, Hanover's Asst. Borough Manager.  The Evening Sun did a wonderful article on the tour, which included this quote..

"It's definitely a needed infrastructure and I think they planned it out well," McSherrystown Councilman David Bolton said after the tour.  "It's very impressive. They put a lot of money into this project. Everything looks great," Bolton said.

http://www.eveningsun.com/news/ci_22187499/wastewater-plant-improvements-good-environment-communit

Hanover Regional Economic Development Committee

I am happy to report that Shanna Terroso from the York/Adams Regional Smart Growth Coalition, was able to secure a private grant from the Realtor's Association to fund McSherrystown's and Conewago Township's participation in this endeavor for the coming year in full.  I have received a sample Resolution to present to Council at our meeting on the 9th of this month showing our commitment to this project, designed to identify our region's economic strengths and to promote them to businesses, in efforts to attract them to our area and ultimately creating jobs for our people.  I am very excited about working with leaders from both York and Adams County to boost the local economy.


Final Council Meeting of 2012

The final meeting saw a vote on the above-mentioned budget, a review of the costs to fix our street sweeper and the reserve capital for a "new" sweeper in a few years, the passing of the 2013 Tax Ordinances (maintained from the rates/charges from 2012), and several Resolutions for the various charges necessary for daily operations of the Borough (also noting there were no increases to these from 2012).

A review of the work done by USG on the Sanitary Sewer Maintenance (which I posted previously) saw all work completed and areas identified for future repairs.  Detailed information can be acquired from the Borough Office should you be interested.

As always, I am here to answer any questions you may have or address any concerns that affect your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Please contact me anytime...I'm always around!  A happy and safe 2013 to you all.


David Bolton
McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen.

Legislation, Information and Appropriation

Thank you for tuning in to my blog. I appreciate your interest and thank you for allowing me to continue to represent you.

I have several topics to discuss in this issue. I would like to begin with the meeting I attended last Thursday with the Hanover Borough Water and Sewer Committee, where I was afforded the opportunity to gain some specific answers on the questions I had previously posed concerning the Inter-Municipal Wastewater Agreement, followed by a recap of my concerns with the Nuisance Ordinance Amendment as it pertains to furniture, then touching on some of the specifics within the 2013 Borough Budget, a few notes on the Hanover Area Regional Economic Development Committee, and lastly looking forward to the Adams County Borough Association meeting to be held this evening.

Hanover Regional Inter-Municipal Wastewater Agreement

I would first like to thank Barb Krebs and Ed Reed for the invitation to attend their committee meeting last week. They were not only cordial and accommodating, but very thorough in their explanations concerning the Inter-Municipal Wastewater Agreement.

Specifically, I had posed the question asking why the audit procedure lumps the municipalities into one audit instead of separately as the original document dictates. The current audit DOES list each municipality separately, however, only one audit is completed in order to reduce the costs of having four individual documents produced. This makes complete sense, and still allows for the proper financial distributions to be displayed for public record.

I had also questioned why, after 25 years, do we need to document these abberations to the original agreement in writing, as opposed to amending the original document. It was explained that some 25 years ago, the relationships between the municipalities were such that an agreement on a handshake was as good as a legal document today. However, in today's legal environment, a handshake agreement does not pull weight with auditors who must abide by the rules to which they are bound. As such, the agreement, which has been in effect since that time, had to be formalized. When I questioned why the original document was not re-written, it was explained that in order to do so would constitute a new document in the eyes of the DEP and other regulatory establishments, and would be subject to the entire process of review and approval. This process would cost the municipalities much time and money, and would also subject the agreement to newer and possibly more restrictive guidelines, as some of the policies and allowances of these regulatory establishments have changed over the years. This also makes sense to me.

My other major concern was in regards to the Conveyance System Charge. It is currently being distributed on a percentage of the original Capital Contribution each municipality gave towards the construction of the system. I wondered why, since we meter the amounts coming from each municipality, do we not charge for this as stated in the agreement the same way we charge for the metered usage. It was explained that this Conveyance Charge is such a small amount compared to the total that it is more intensive to calculate the exact number, which would not actually change enough to warrant the labor it would take to keep track of it. Ideally, we are really talking a matter of several dollars; not hundreds or thousands of dollars. In efforts to streamline the process and reduce costs for its administration, it was decided to fix that amount each year. Once I was given the opportunity to see exactly how that works, this also makes sense.

Had I been afforded these answers PRIOR to voting on the Agreement, I would have been in favor of its signing. However, I will NEVER agree to vote on any legislation without fully understanding its impact on the constituents of this town. I would like to again thank the staff and municipal leaders of the Hanover Borough for affording me the opportunity to gain clarity concerning these matters, and look forward to working with them on the many joint projects we have together in the future.

Nuisance Ordinance Amendment

As this legislation did pass at the last meeting, with myself as the only dissenter, I will not spend a lot of time here in defense of my stance; many of you have read my comments previously concerning this topic. I would like to state that, in the Gettysburg Times, Dick Watson wrote that I was not in favor of it because of the wording. This is somewhat true.

I would have been in favor of passing this Ordinance had it not specfied which type of furniture would be banned, but if it would have stated more about the CONDITION of the furniture being used. Some on Council, after hearing my remarks against the legislation, said that we needed to be able to take action against those who did not keep their furniture in good condition, so as to avoid bugs, pests and disease. My comments were that the current Ordinances already address these concerns and give the Borough power to act when the need arises.

It is my belief still that the wording of this Ordinance is inappropriate and violates the rights of our citizens according to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If the furniture you use outside your home creates no threats to the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of your neighbors, then it is of no concern to anyone what type of furniture you use on your own property. This Ordinance should have identified furniture that posed such threats, and not specific types of furniture.

2013 Borough Budget

I am happy to report that we have reviewed a Borough Budget which will be balanced and will not dictate any sort of tax increase for this next year.  It has been proposed that there will be funds to establish a Borough website, which should come to fruition by mid-next year. I would like to thank the other members of Council for seeing the Borough website as a useful tool to keep the people of McSherrystown informed, and to help promote our town to outside businesses who may want to come establish locations here, as well as attract homeowners and families to live here.

I will have more on the budget specfics once it is voted on and approved later this year.

Hanover Area Regional Economic Development Committee (HARED)

I was also in attendance this past week with members from Conewago Township, Hanover Borough, Penn Township, York County Planning Commission, Adams County Planning Commission, York County Economic Alliance, Adams County Economic Development Corp., and the York/Adams Regional Smart Growth Coalition as we collaborated on the establishment of a Regional Economic Development Plan for these four municipalities. It is the first time in Pennsylvania state history that such a plan is being developed across county lines.

We reveiwed the process needed to put this Plan together, and the associated costs to each municipality. This Plan would help our area identify our facilities, infrastructure and resources which would attract businesses to establish here, creating jobs and expanding the tax base in our immediate area. It would also give us direction as to how to reach out to specific industries in efforts to bring them to our municipalities.

The costs associated with this endeavor would total $16,625. This cost would be distributed among the municipalites, with Hanover and Penn Township giving $4,421.25 each, and Conewago Township and McSherrystown giving $3,891.25 each.  As members of the York County Economic Alliance, Hanover and Penn Township's contributions would be covered by that body.

To these ends, Shanna Terroso of the York/Adams Regional Smart Growth Coalition applied to the National Association of Realtors for a grant to cover the costs for McSherrystown and Conewago Township. If granted, this would mean that there would be no municipal contribution towards this project for the coming year. Shanna is hopeful that the grant will be approved by the end of November, and plans will be made to establish a Steering Committee by February, 2013 to start the Visioning Process and to study the Market Demand and Land Assessment in this region.

I am very excited about the opportunities this presents for local business leaders and residents alike to take an active role on this Committee. I will be actively communicating with the people of McSherrystown to see who is interested in joining me on the Steering Committee this coming Spring.

Adams County Borough Association

This governmental group is made up of representives from all the Borough Councils and Mayors in the county, as well as the local State Representatives Moul and Tallman, Senator Alloway, the Adams County Commissioners, Adams County township representatives and other important County officials. Reports are heard from the AC Radio Communication Group, AC Economic and Community Partnership, AC Transportation Planning Organization, AC Council of Governements, AC Tax Collection Committee and the Penn State Cooperative Extension.

By bringing together the elected leaders from the county municipalities, we gain greater insight as to the pertinent issues facing us individually and collectively. We are able to identify our strengths and opportunities for improvement, and to gain clarity on the impact of the legislation passed down to us by the state government. We are afforded the invaluable occasion to discuss these matters with our County Commissioners and our Congressional leaders, so that they can best represent the voices of our constituents.

At tonight's meeting, I will be accepting the nomination to become the Vice-President of this organization. In doing so, I hope to continue to serve not only the people of McSherrystown, but the people of Adams County as a whole, in efforts to promote the common good and to establish the means of creating an environment in which ideas will thrive, and where the actions that we initiate bring properity to the people, so that they may continue on their personal pursuits of happiness.

I am thankful for this opportunity, and I look forward to the great and wonderful things we can accomplish together for the good of our county.

For Liberty,

David "Scotty" Bolton
McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen

McSherrystown Borough's Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment

I appreciate your time and interest in the matters before our Borough. Let me begin today with a few reference links for you to study in efforts to make my explanation of the Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment as brief and easy as possible.

It has been suggested by certain members of the Council that the "unsightly" presence of indoor furniture being used on porches and unenclosed patios in the Borough "might" create situations of unsanitary junk accumulation, and they worry "that sofas and chairs used outdoors could get wet and become foul smelling, or be a haven for bugs and vermin."  McSherrystown could vote this month on banning sofas outdoors

In an effort to discourage the use of "indoor" furniture outside, these Council members are proposing an Amendment to the Solid Waste Ordinance (178) to specifically state that the Borough may fine anyone who does so. It was suggested that other local municipalities currently have text in their Ordinances banning such furniture. You can read that text and get a feel for what their citizens think from the following references:

York Bans Indoor Furniture Used Outside--FOX43
York’s great couch “epidemic”
York City passes ordinance to forbid indoor furniture outdoors
Gettysburg Borough Code, Page 10-4  §10-107. Unlawful to Maintain Interior Furniture On Porch. 
Maintaining or causing to maintain upon any unenclosed porch, or exterior attachment, 
furniture, other than furniture designed for exterior use, which is commonly intended 
for use inside a dwelling, including but not limited to upholstered sofas, chairs, davenports, beds, divans and the like, shall constitute a nuisance.  
(Ord. 6743, 4/3/1967; as added by Ord. 1211-98, 8/10/1998, §3; and as amended by Ord. 
1333-07, 4/9/2007) 

I have two specific issues with this proposed Amendment.

My first issue is that the Ordinance currently states, "It shall be unlawful for any person to accumulate or store any junked, abandoned or discarded vehicle, trailer, boat, appliance or household furnishing on private or public property within the Borough.", Chapter 178, Article I, Section 178-3 of the Code of the Borough of McSherrystown.  Household furnishings are defined as "All items normally found and used in a home." under the definitions within said Chapter.

Chapter 178, Article I, Section 178-1 of the Code says that the accumulation of these items "creates a hazard and danger to the health and welfare of people of the Borough".

It also states that "Any person who shall violate any section of this article shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, and, in default thereof, to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 30 days.", Chapter 178, Article I, Section 178-4 of the Code of the Borough of McSherrystown.

I believe these two sections of the already-existing Code are sufficient to give the Borough authority to maintain cleanliness and aesthetic tranquility within our municipality, without Amendment. If these furnishings are maintained as to not create "a hazard and danger to the health and welfare of people of the Borough", then it is my deduction that it is the people's responsible right to choose and maintain those furnishings, regardless of their intended use or classification by the manufacturer. Should those furnishings become non-compliant with the current Ordinance, the Borough already has remedies and actions it can take to correct those situations.

This brings us to my second issue with this proposed Amendment.

I am of the mind that the infringement of a citizen's right to choose what furniture they use at their residence is not within the powers of this municipal body, nor any legislative or representative body, under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If that furniture does not violate the above-referenced Ordinance and is in good condition, it is not for this Council to dictate how our citizens enjoy their possessions.

I will refer to Article I, Sections 1 and 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (click here to read the full text of this document):

Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

No Discrimination by Commonwealth and Its Political Subdivisions
Section 26.

Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.


Being an Inherent Right, I believe that a citizens right of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing their own happiness with that property is a protected liberty under our Constitution. That right is currently reflected in our current Ordinance. By including the text of what specific furniture one may enjoy within the Commonwealth violates the very first section of our founding document. Including such restrictions also puts our Council in violation of Section 26, as I interpret the Inherent Rights explained under Section 1 to include and supersede the civil rights mentioned. If one cannot afford specifically designated "outdoor" furniture, and chooses to responsibly use other furnishings to enjoy their property, it is a direct discrimination against this demographic to ban their right to do so by legislation on any level of municipal government in Pennsylvania.


When I was sworn in as a Council member last December in the Gettysburg Courthouse, I vowed to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The latter document tells us that we have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying liberty. It is my purpose, and my honor, to defend that liberty for all those who have entrusted me with this position. The government is designed to serve the people, not to hamper their rights. I hope that I have clearly demonstrated why I will NOT be voting in favor of this Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment, or any such legislation that violates the rights of our citizenry under the founding laws of our land. 

David "Scotty" Bolton
McSherrystown Borough Councilman and citizen.

Inter-municipal Agreement Auditing and Budgeting Procedure

I'm glad to have you back at my blog. Let me first apologize for not posting sooner after last week's meeting. With the National Elections fast approaching and an increase in personal life activity, it has been a chore to get everything done recently. I do have a very important matter to inform you about, and I hope that you will take some time to consider these points herein, and to garner attention to the facts at hand.

At the October 24th meeting, Council received communications from the Hanover Borough pertaining to the Hanover Area Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility's budgeting, payment and auditing methods. The communication outlines how, for the past 25 years, the Borough has figured these numbers. It also states that some of these calculations and methods are NOT in exact conformance with the Inter-municipal Agreement which all municipalities involved signed on November 15, 1982.

Specifically, the document tells us there are three areas which the auditors informed the Borough of Hanover were not being followed, and they were instructed to inform the municipalities. Those areas are:

1) The Regional Plant funds are being audited as part of the Borough of Hanover Audit and not separately, as required in Article VII, Section 7.04, Audited Statements which requires an audit by March 31st of each year.

2) The cash balance is being applied as a credit against the treatment charge in four equal installments in accordance with each municipality's flow share rather than being applied after March 31st on account of the next succeeding quarterly installments of the estimated Treatment Charge, in chronological order there-of as stated in Article VII, Section 7.05, Payment of Final Charge; Credit for Over-payments.

3) The conveyance system charge is being distributed amongst the municipalities based on their respective capital constributions to construct the conveyance system and pump station rather than being distributed based on the actual flow contribution from each municipality into the respective sections of the interceptor system and the pump station as stipulated in Article VI, Seciton 6.01, Treatment Charge.

As this was a notification from the auditors to the proper procedures to be utilized, which were not in standing with the original agreement, and as it has somehow taken 25 years to identify this anomoly, I had a few questions of my own. Listed under the same numbers as above, the questions I posed were as such:

1) Is each municipality to audit their share each year or is Hanover responsible to do so? I was told that Hanover is to do the audit, but that each municipality is to be audited separately. To date, Hanover has lumped this audit all into one report. I also asked why have these audits not been done according to the agreement and why has it taken 25 years to identify this aberration? As no representatives from Hanover Borough were present, and no one on our staff or Council had the answer, Scott Cook, McSherrystown Borough Manager, said he would talk with Ed Reed, Asst Borough Manager for Hanover, to find out.

2) I was in favor of the method currently employed in the second bullet point. This seems to be a more efficient and accurate method for this procedure. However, I DO NOT like the fact that "This process was agreed to verbally some twenty years ago when it was discussed by the members of the committee who authored the inter-municipal agreement" (text directly from the document). I made the statement that verbal agreements are not a good way for government to do business and this should be amended in the original agreement as an addendum, or the original be re-written and re-signed. I believe we leave too much open to speculation and manipulation when we enter into verbal agreements in government, especially when those agreements were over two decades ago by people who are no longer part of the process.

3) How does the current method used to calculate the conveyance system charge compare to the charges of actual use to our citizens? If it is being calculated on respective capital contributions to construct the system, which is based on a one-time percentage, it cannot fluctuate for the growth of other municipalities and increased flow from them, which would reduce the percentage of use by the smaller, slower growing municipalities. If the original agreement calls for calculations based on actual flow contribution, then we should respect the agreement, as I believe that is a fair and equitable means of charging for the system usage. I was told that the Hanover Borough DOES actually meter the flow, but according to this document, they do not use it to determine the charges as stated in the agreement. One person stated that we are only talking about a few hundred dollars here, but when it comes to taxpayer money, every dollar counts to me. I was told that I would get more information on this before next discussion.

With all of these questions unanswered,  and the fact that I had reached out to several Council members and staff of the Hanover Borough in order to attend their meeting to discuss these questions (I was never given any information on meeting place/times and my questions have since gone unanswered), I moved that a vote on accepting these erroneous procedures be tabled until such time that we can get those answers.

The Council has also been presented with a budget for the 2013 operating year. We will be voting on this budget at our next meeting, November 14th. Anyone with any questions or input may always contact me at councilmanbolton@gmail.com, or can grab me while I'm out for a run.

I hope to see everyone at the polls on Tuesday. It is less important to me for whom you vote as it is that you exercise your right to pick our leaders. A choice not made is a choice in itself, but I truly believe that we get it right more often when more of those who have a say stand up and voice their opinions. That is the only way our leaders can truly represent their people. Thanks for reading, and check back often for updates.

David "Scotty" Bolton
McSherrystown Borough Council member and citizen