Voters in Exeter Township will choose three people to represent them on the board of supervisors in the Nov. 4 election.
There are four candidates competing for two six-year terms on the board. Those candidates are Democrats Amanda Johnsen and George Bell III and Republicans Larry Drogo and Michelle Kircher.
Two of those candidates are also seeking one 2-year term on the board. Those candidates are Johnsen and Drogo.
Kircher is an incumbent. Bell, who resigned from his appointed post on the board in August, will appear on the ballot.
The candidates were asked to respond to the following questions.
Question 1: What makes you an ideal representative of this area?
Question 2: What needs improvement in your municipality?
Occupation: Johnson is an assistant project manager at Life Sciences.
Response 1: I have lived in Exeter for over a decade and have children in the school district which, I feel, means I have a vested interest in my township and would like to make it better for both the people who live in our community now and for our future.
Response 2: There needs to be more transparency among our board, as well as more communication with the public on issues. Our community has a lot to say, but I feel that their voice gets lost easily and isn't accounted for in decisions that will affect household budgets. I want to make sure the community is heard and has a voice.
Response 1: Experience and accomplishment are the strengths of my candidacy. Over three terms as supervisor, I acquired valuable knowledge of the powers and limitations of the office. I also learned the importance of reasoned persuasion when working with colleagues to achieve goals and to prevent foolish, wasteful decisions. I have been a "hands-on" supervisor. For example, I became a certified landfill inspector and helped impose large environmental fines on Pioneer Crossing, which improved its operations and diminished negative community impacts. I always advocated higher host fees that support our township budget. Additionally, I was the driving force behind the creation of Exeter's library, which is Berks County's finest. I personally assisted in its design, construction and its capital financial campaign.
Further, Exeter's new, efficient sewer plant received my voting support, and I opposed the sale, which resulted in outrageous rate increases. Always mindful of quality-of-life issues, I supported and defended farmland preservation zoning, limiting the developments that raise oppressive school taxes. Lastly, PennDOT heeded my recommendations regarding traffic improvements at critical intersections such as Shelbourne and DeMoss roads at Route 422. In summary, both my record of service and my candidacy reflect a deep and enduring commitment to the residents of Exeter.
Response 2: Exeter has more than 60 group homes scattered throughout our township. Unfortunately, violent crime has become a regular and rampant occurrence within these group homes. Assaults and property damage to adjacent homes are well-documented. The resulting burden on our police department has prompted our chief to correspond with the homes' management, threatening criminal prosecutions.
Clearly, many of these homes are poorly operated and regulated by state authorities. They damage property values and the reputation of our township. To address this issue, I propose an amendment of Exeter's zoning ordinance to impose maximum requirements for staffing and operations. We should insist the state provide better oversight, and we should pursue civil and criminal penalties where possible.
Other quality-of-life issues affect Exeter and could be addressed through improved zoning ordinances. I support ordinances to reduce high housing density, particularly as it relates to the addition of condominiums and apartment complexes in our township. Adding more high density housing units will only increase school taxes and traffic congestion while reducing property values. Restrictive zoning is a supervisor's tool to aid law enforcement and improve the quality of life of our township's residents. We must be vigilant and aggressive in keeping Exeter a safe and desirable place to live.
Response 1: I have been a resident of Exeter for 40 years. Over the years I have seen what has worked and what has not. While Exeter is a great place to live we could improve a lot on the financial side of things. I will be focused on the taxpayer in Exeter instead of just buying new equipment and lawyer fees. I feel as though the taxpayer view has been forgotten. With all the projects in the pipeline, I have the project management experience to keep them under budget. Finally being an outdoor enthusiast I would like to see our parks and recreation opportunities greatly improved. The quality-of-life issues are what bring people to live in Exeter.
My style has always been to handle things on a personal level. Not letting things get so bad that lawyers have to get involved. My ability to see both sides of an issue and deal with everyone in a respectful way is one of my most important qualities. Exeter certainly could use more consideration of other points of view right now. This is my personality: I see good in everyone. We need more talking and less arguments.
Response 2: Over the years Exeter was blessed, in having a sewer plant, a large landfill, industrial park and a large shopping center. All these have contributed to our tax base. Yet we still run a deficit every year being covered by the sewer fund. So when people say our taxes aren't that high, compared to other areas ours should be much lower. My focus will be to get our income to match our yearly expenses.
Presently, the township is spending a few million a year more than it is taking in per year. This is being covered by the sewer fund, which won't last forever. I believe some of the funds from the sewer sale should be returned to the taxpayers by bringing back the homestead tax refund. Can any average taxpayer show you where about $70 million went? I would rather see something tangible.
Another area that needs to stop is getting involved in constant litigation that we rarely win. I believe this goes along with transparency. I don't understand what is so secret that the taxpayer can't be told what's going on, it is their money. Why can't we discuss things in front of the public?