EDITORIAL COMMENTARY: The new Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners wants to change course on how the township budgets and abandon its disciplined, conservative budgeting practices of the past.
When I was elected to the Upper Pottsgrove Township Board of Commissioners in 2020, there was a great deal to learn. One of the most complicated, consequential, and directly impactful responsibilities was preparing a responsible municipal budget—one that provided essential services without asking taxpayers to pay more than necessary.
I began reviewing previous budgets, which spanned countless pages and contained hundreds of individual accounts. The process seemed overwhelming. But it quickly became clear that the problem went far beyond complicated spreadsheets. The township was carrying substantial debt accumulated under boards prior to 2018—boards led by then-President Elwood Taylor. Debt service alone placed a significant burden on taxpayers.
At one point, Taylor Boards had borrowed money from banks just to cover expenses while waiting for tax revenues to arrive, only to borrow again when that money ran out. The township had also resorted to borrowing from or draining dedicated funds, including the sewer, capital improvement, and open space, and routinely experienced significant year-end operating deficits.
Even our legally required pension funds were seriously underfunded. The township’s financial condition was so concerning that the state could potentially intervene, impose a receivership, and exercise extraordinary authority to raise taxes to address the financial shortfalls. This was the financial mess the township inherited from its past leadership. What happened next demonstrates what responsible financial management can accomplish.
The Financial Turnaround Was No Accident
As a new commissioner, I spent considerable time learning from President Trace Slinkerd about the budget process and the financial strategy he had begun implementing during the four years before I joined the board. Those changes were already starting to produce results.
His philosophy was straightforward: the Board of Commissioners has two fundamental responsibilities—keeping residents safe and keeping the roads open. Beyond those essential obligations, every spending decision must be evaluated on behalf of the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill. That means funding essential services first, scrutinizing other expenditures, and remembering that the money in the township’s accounts belongs to the taxpayers—not to the commissioners.
President Slinkerd repeatedly emphasized a conservative approach to budgeting. The township would identify what was actually needed to operate, prepare realistic but cautious revenue projections, and avoid asking residents for additional tax dollars unless absolutely necessary. The budgets were deliberately structured with modest projected deficits, placing pressure on management and department heads to identify savings throughout the year.
Over eight years, this approach worked as intended. The township controlled costs and managed risk and, as personnel and other costs rose, only increased taxes when actual revenue did not meet actual expenses. This happened only once.
The strategy accomplished two important objectives: it encouraged spending discipline throughout the organization and protected taxpayers from unnecessary tax increases. The result? Again, only one modest tax increase in eight years.
That is what happens when a board prioritizes fiscal responsibility over expanding spending simply because money is available. The township’s remarkable financial turnaround was even recognized on the floor of the Pennsylvania Senate.
By the End of 2025, Upper Pottsgrove Was in Its Strongest Financial Position
Consider where Upper Pottsgrove stood when the board changed in January 2026. As of December 31, 2025, the township held $11,544,389 in cash and investments, generating approximately $900 to $1,000 per day in interest for the benefit of taxpayers.
The township was debt-free. Its pension funds were funded again. And the 2026 budget had already been approved using the same conservative approach, with no property tax increase required.
After years of digging out of debt, correcting past financial problems, rebuilding reserves, and restoring fiscal stability, Upper Pottsgrove had reached a position few municipalities can claim.
This did not happen by accident. It was the result of deliberate decisions, restrained spending, conservative budgeting, and a willingness to put taxpayers first. Then the board changed.
The New Board’s First Priority Appeared to Be Raising Taxes
After President Slinkerd, Commissioner Hank Llewellyn, and I retired, a new board took office. Al Leach became president, and Elwood Taylor became vice president.
One of the new board’s first significant moves was to attempt to reopen the already approved 2026 budget to pursue a property tax increase. There was no clear financial emergency that justified such a move. Fortunately, the attempt to reopen the budget was unsuccessful. But the message was unmistakable: the new board was prepared to abandon the budgeting philosophy that had protected taxpayers for eight years.
Residents received another glimpse of what may be coming at the most recent meeting, when the board paid to have a company present financial projections and help justify a future tax increase. The presentation did little to make a compelling case for why taxpayers should be asked to pay substantially more (see article concerning this action, link here https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/another-costly-new-board-move-a-political-shot/ ).
Instead of continuing the conservative budgeting practices that restored the township’s financial health, the board now appears intent on funding a broader array of expenditures upfront and justifying the additional costs with terms such as “sustainable.”
Sustainable for whom? Not necessarily for the taxpayers who must pay the bill. At the meeting, the board discussed the need to raise an additional $450,000 to $500,000 in property tax revenue for the next budget. That figure was presented as approximately a 1.58-mill increase. But the percentage impact deserves far more attention than the millage figure alone.
The Numbers Tell a Clear Picture
Using the township’s 2025 property tax revenue of approximately $1,250,000, an additional $475,000 would represent a 38% increase in property tax revenue.
$1,250,000 — Current property tax revenue
$475,000 — Proposed additional annual revenue
$1,725,000 — Resulting property tax revenue
38% — Increase in property tax revenue
These figures are based on the numbers discussed at the recent meeting and the township’s publicly available meeting recording. The Journal Board reviewed the calculations because residents deserve to understand the actual financial implications of what their elected officials are proposing.
Nevertheless, an additional $475,000 against a $1.25 million property tax revenue base is a staggering increase in the amount the township would collect. And for what?
The township is debt-free. It has substantial cash and investments. It earns thousands of dollars in interest every few days. Its pension obligations have been brought back under control. What has changed so dramatically that residents should now be expected to shoulder such a substantial additional burden?
The public deserves a detailed, line-by-line explanation—not slogans, vague assurances, or a presentation designed to make a tax increase sound inevitable.
Who Benefits When Spending Comes First and Taxpayers Come Last?
The concern is not simply the size of the proposed increase. It is the apparent change in priorities. A conservative budget forces elected officials to make difficult decisions. It requires them to distinguish between what the township needs and what someone would like the township to fund.
A budget designed to fund every proposed expenditure upfront removes much of that discipline. Instead of first asking whether spending is necessary and affordable, the board risks treating a higher tax bill as the default solution.
We have already seen an example of the spending priorities that concern residents. In January, Commissioner Taylor attempted to allocate $30,000 in taxpayer funds to a non-township organization on whose board he serves. Other commissioners stopped the proposal. Residents have every reason to demand assurance that this expenditure will not reappear in the upcoming budget.
Taxpayers should not have to wonder whether money that could remain in their pockets will instead be directed toward discretionary projects, outside organizations, or spending priorities that have not been adequately justified. Every dollar collected through property taxes should have a clear purpose, a demonstrated need, and a defensible public benefit. That is the standard responsible commissioners should apply.
Residents Must Pay Attention Before the Budget Is Finalized
Let us be clear: a 38% increase in property tax revenue is not a minor adjustment. It is not a routine cost-of-living increase. And it should not be accepted simply because the board uses the word “sustainable.”
There is also a legitimate question about whether the 38% figure is being presented as an opening position. If the board begins by discussing an increase of that magnitude and later reduces its proposal to 15% or 20%, will residents be expected to view the smaller increase as a victory?
A tax increase does not become reasonable merely because it is smaller than an even more alarming proposal. The proper question is not how much the board can persuade residents to accept. It is how much additional revenue is genuinely necessary, what specific expenditures require it, and what alternatives have been considered to avoid placing another burden on taxpayers. Those questions must be answered before the budget is adopted—not after residents receive their tax bills.
It is time for residents to speak up, attend the upcoming budget meetings, ask hard questions, and demand accountability. The township spent years repairing the damage caused by poor financial management. We eliminated debt, rebuilt reserves, corrected pension funding problems, and demonstrated that disciplined budgeting can protect taxpayers without sacrificing essential services.
We should not abandon that success without compelling evidence that doing so is necessary. The residents of Upper Pottsgrove deserve better than a board that appears ready to replace fiscal discipline with a spending-first philosophy.
I believe this board is underestimating the number of residents who follow township business, understand the numbers, and recognize the difference between responsible budgeting and asking taxpayers to write a bigger check simply because elected officials want more money to spend. The township’s financial turnaround was built on putting taxpayers first.
Any board that abandons that principle should expect taxpayers to demand answers.