The Supervisors hired a Forensic Accountant to both determine the extent and amount of the misappropriation by the Manager.  This report was used by the DA in the successful prosecution of  Townsend.  The report was made available to the press and public the day after the Supervisors received it.  The Supervisors have demonstrated through the trial verdict that there will not be any loss and the Township received full restitution as well as the cost of the legal fees and the Forensic Accountant.

Fact: The budget process begins in November each year and it’s not known what millage rate will be needed until after each department submits their budget request and it gets reviewed by the Board who then hold public hearings in December to set the tax rate for the following year.  So to say that we raised taxes after the elections, well yes, there is no other way to do it.  But we have also lowered tax rates in the past after an election.  That’s the time and that’s the place.

Fact: CKS total fees for this project were approximately $662,000. Of that total, something in the order of $75,000 went to other sub-consultants. Hence CKS got about $587,000. Note that this was for both the design and construction management portions of the project.  The total construction cost was approximately $5.7 million.  Hence, the total engineering fees approximated 12% of construction cost. (662 divided by 5700).  It is a rule of thumb that DESIGN fees would be 7% to 10% of construction cost and inspection fees would be likewise. Hence, 14% to 20% would be "normal". CKS came in below 12%.  Tax dollars were saved by taking this approach.

Fact: In 2001 the Democrat opponents sabotaged the idea of building a community center.  The Supervisors created a Community Center Study Commission to research the entire project. After months of taking in residents input during many hearings the commission recommended that the Community Center as proposed not be built.  The Supervisors then decided to listen to the commission and the people that spoke and shelved plans for a community center.  They then concentrated on the new Senior Center and the expansion of the Library.

At the time of the bond issue the total cost was not yet known. Bids were pending and expected to range $10 to $16 million depending on options selected. Partnering with Council Rock would have saved substantial taxpayer dollars on a shared competitive swimming pool. This was to be a facility that all residents would want to use, be proud of and would be a major focal point of our recreation programs. Included in the facility was a new Senior Citizens facility. The Morrisey ground condemnation by CRSD for a new High School and by Northampton Township for a new Community Center prevented hundreds of homes from being developed thereby saving school tax burdens. Additionally, the sharing of facilities here and at other Township/School District sites would have resulted in the savings of millions of taxpayer dollars. However, as explained, the community center idea was shelved.

In 2006, Council Rock School District sold their bonds competitively.  Council Rock paid an underwriting fee that was approximately 50% higher than the Northampton Municipal Authority’s.  Northampton did use a local business to manage its bond sales.  Each time the bonds were sold, the Township looked at other bonds issues to compare the interest rates and the fees to be sure that they were competitive.  The Township uses a local business because it gets much better service.  Tax dollars saved.

DVRFA sells its own bonds into the market and uses the proceeds to make loans to municipalities.  Naturally, DVRFA needs to cover all its costs including commissions on the bond sales and its own overhead.  So the Township wouldn’t pay commissions on its own bonds, but it would have to pay the cost of DVRFA’s commissions.  As an investor - which would you rather own:  Northampton Township General Obligation Bonds, backed by the full taxing power of the Township or DVRFA’s Revenue Bonds backed by a pool of unknown municipal credits?  Most investors prefer the direct obligation of the Township.  When DVRFA makes a loan to a Township, it needs to enter into an interest rate swap to fix the interest rate for the desired term of the loan.  Interest rates from the swap market and interest rates in the bond market are more or less the same - but when you use a swap, you give up the economic opportunity to save money by refinancing debt in the future.  If you want that right with a swap, you need to pay a steep extra price.  Once entering into a loan with DVRFA, the Township needs to comply with the terms of the program.  DVRFA in turn reports to Bond Trustee and its remarketing agents (most DVRFA’s bonds are sold as variable rate debt requiring weekly remarketing).  When the Township issues its own bonds there is no Trustee or remarketing agent.  Common sense tells you that with an extra level of bureaucracy, more complicated financial structure, and less transparent credit quality, it would be difficult for DVRFA to match the rate that the Township can get on its own.  In fact, the Township routinely saves money by issuing its own bonds.

Fact: The building was in need of constant repairs as well as additional work to bring it up to code.  The cost of refurbishing and repairs were allowed to be used as an offset to the monthly rental per the lease agreement.  The property was offered for public bid and $425,000 was the highest bid received.  Continuing ownership would have been an ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars and cost even more money in the long run.

Fact: This was part and parcel of a larger puzzle that was to be solved - safety and traffic at 232/332 and between Township Rd/Citizens Bank and 332. The abandoned Arco station, after sitting vacant for years, was condemned by the Township after an Einstein Bagel was interested in moving to the site. This action prevented undesirable traffic generating commercial occupancy and led to the Richboro 2000 Committee, intersection improvements, new light at Township Road and beautification projects related to the site.  The Richboro 2000 Committee was a committee of 15 to 20 residents formed to advise the Supervisors on rejuvenating Richboro.   Of the $650,000+ total cost being cited by our opponents, only $300,000 of that was for developing the park. The balance was for acquisition and misc. costs of condemnation. The original issue was one of safety. The 232/332 intersection and the Township Rd intersection had been experiencing numerous accidents. The acquisition was a first step in the overall process of improving the area for smoother traffic flow and addressing the safety issues. All four directions at that intersection were envisioned to have 3 lanes.  You can see today that along with the improvements that have already been made and the development of the Crossroads Plaza and Giueseppi Center, that vision has come true.  No way was this referendum material.