Manheim Township residents are being told that a significant financial correction is necessary.
According to reporting by WGAL, the Township’s Fiscal Sustainability Advisory Committee has recommended a plan that could ultimately increase property taxes by approximately 70%, along with higher fees and annual operational savings. For an assessed home valued at $450,000, the committee’s own presentation projects the annual Township property-tax bill increasing from approximately $729 under its 2027 “neutral” scenario to about $1,242 — an increase of more than $500 per year.
That deserves residents’ attention.
But the size of the proposed tax increase is not the only story.
The bigger question is how Manheim Township reached a point where an increase of this magnitude is being seriously discussed at all.
The Township agrees there is a structural problem
There is little disagreement anymore about whether Manheim Township faces a serious financial issue.
The Township’s Board of Commissioners recently told residents that the municipality has a “budget crisis.” According to the Board, 2026 expenses are approximately $44 million while revenue is approximately $36 million, and continuing along that path would consume the Township’s remaining excess cash.
The Fiscal Sustainability Advisory Committee paints an equally concerning picture.
Under a status-quo scenario with no corrective action, the committee projects:
- 2026: $6.1 million deficit
- 2027: $8.0 million deficit
- 2028: $9.9 million deficit
- 2029: $12.0 million deficit
- 2030: $14.2 million deficit
- 2031: $16.5 million deficit
Under that same projection, the General Fund balance would fall from approximately $9.7 million at the end of 2026 to just $1.7 million at the end of 2027, then become negative beginning in 2028.
That is not a temporary budget hiccup.
It is a structural imbalance.
And, importantly, the committee itself says the core problem is that recurring General Fund expenditures now exceed recurring General Fund revenues. It identifies a long-term structural imbalance, reliance on one-time revenue, and rising personnel and operating costs as contributing factors.
That is precisely why residents deserve more than a discussion about the size of the next tax increase.
They deserve a detailed accounting of how the imbalance developed.
The warning signs predate this summer
The current Board has said the financial crisis was inherited rather than created by recent Board actions.
There is evidence supporting part of that explanation.
In its August 14 letter, the Board pointed to the $25 million Manheim Township received from the 2003 sale of its sewage collection and conveyance system. According to the Township, those reserves created substantial financial flexibility, and use of that money to cover budget shortfalls began in the 2010s as services and expenses continued to grow without corresponding increases in tax millage.
If that history is accurate, the current problem did not begin in 2026.
It did not begin in 2025.
And it did not suddenly appear when a sustainability committee put numbers onto a PowerPoint slide.
That makes the timeline important.
When did financial staff first warn that reserves were being consumed faster than they could be replaced?
When did commissioners first receive projections showing recurring expenses exceeding recurring revenue?
When was it first apparent that maintaining existing services without substantially more recurring revenue would eventually become impossible?
Those are not partisan questions.
They are basic financial-management questions.
Spending deserves the same scrutiny as revenue
It may ultimately be true that Manheim Township needs additional recurring revenue.
A municipality cannot permanently operate by drawing down savings.
But “we need more revenue” is not a complete explanation when residents are being asked to pay substantially more.
The expense side matters too.
Manheim Township’s proposed FY2026 budget showed $32.67 million in salary and benefit expenditures, an increase of approximately $3.4 million, or 11.6%, from FY2025.
The Township reported that salaries and benefits represented approximately 70% of the operating budget.
Full-time staffing also increased from 184 employees in 2021 to 223 employees in 2026 — an increase of 39 positions, or more than 21%.
Those figures do not prove that the additional employees were unnecessary.
They do not prove mismanagement.
A growing community can require more police officers, firefighters, EMS personnel, public works employees, library staff and other services.
But that is exactly why the public deserves to see the details.
Where were the 39 positions added?
What services did those positions support?
Which additions were required by collective bargaining agreements?
Which positions replaced overtime or part-time labor?
Which positions represented entirely new services?
And what was the long-term cost projection when those staffing decisions were made?
If residents are being asked to provide significantly more recurring revenue, they should be able to see exactly what level of government that additional money is being used to sustain.
Even the proposed solution includes spending reductions
The Fiscal Sustainability Advisory Committee is not recommending that taxes alone solve the problem.
Its recommendation calls for approximately 2% in recurring operational savings each year, which it estimates at about $1 million annually, along with increases in Township-controlled fees.
Under the committee’s scenario, the Township would combine spending reductions, fee increases and property-tax increases to gradually restore the General Fund.
Even with those measures, the committee projects another $5.4 million deficit in 2027 before turning to projected surpluses beginning in 2028.
That raises another important question:
If recurring operational savings of roughly $1 million per year are considered achievable now, how many of those efficiencies could have been identified earlier?
Again, that is not an accusation.
It is a question that should be answered before asking taxpayers for hundreds of additional dollars each year.
A 70% increase deserves more than a PowerPoint
The Fiscal Sustainability Committee appears to have done substantial work, and its presentation contains useful information.
But a decision of this magnitude requires the public to be able to look beneath the presentation.
Residents should be able to see the underlying spreadsheets and assumptions.
For example, the committee’s model assumes non-property-tax revenue growth of approximately 1% annually, while salaries, benefits and general inflation grow at approximately 5% per year. It assumes recurring spending reductions of 2% annually and specified fee increases.
Those assumptions matter enormously.
Change the assumed rate of expenditure growth, revenue growth, staffing growth, health-care costs or savings, and the projected tax requirement changes.
That does not mean the assumptions are wrong.
It means the assumptions should be transparent.
Before a tax increase approaching 70% becomes policy, taxpayers should be able to examine the model that produced that recommendation.
The committee’s own recommendations point to broader management questions
Perhaps one of the most interesting sections of the sustainability report has little to do with tax rates.
The committee recommends an independent organizational assessment of the Township’s executive management structure, financial management function, staffing, technology, internal controls, budgeting, financial reporting and audit readiness.
It also recommends that Manheim Township adopt and publicly release a five-year financial forecast as part of every annual budget.
Those are sensible recommendations.
They also underscore why residents should be looking beyond the immediate tax debate.
A five-year forecast allows officials and residents to see structural problems developing before cash reserves are nearly exhausted.
Long-term capital planning helps distinguish recurring operating costs from major projects that may appropriately be financed over many years.
Regular staffing reviews help determine whether personnel levels still align with service demands.
And transparent financial reporting gives residents a chance to understand major decisions before they become emergencies.
Those practices matter regardless of who sits on the Board of Commissioners.
This should not become an argument about “taxes versus cuts”
The easiest version of this debate would divide residents into two camps.
One side would say: Cut everything.
The other would say: Raise taxes because services cost money.
Reality is likely more complicated.
Residents generally want police protection, professional fire and EMS services, maintained roads, parks, recreation programs, libraries and other municipal services.
Those services cost money.
Inflation is real.
Labor costs increase.
Equipment becomes more expensive.
Infrastructure eventually has to be replaced.
At the same time, taxpayers have every right to expect government to continually examine staffing, programs, contracts, capital projects, fees and administrative costs before concluding that substantially more tax revenue is the answer.
The two ideas are not contradictory.
Government can require adequate revenue and be expected to justify its spending.
Records should answer what political arguments cannot
That is why our next step is not to speculate about who is responsible.
It is to obtain the records.
We are requesting the underlying financial models used by the Fiscal Sustainability Advisory Committee.
We are requesting the working documents being used to prepare the FY2027 budget.
We are requesting earlier financial forecasts and written warnings provided to Township commissioners concerning deficits, declining reserves and financial sustainability.
And we are requesting records showing General Fund cash, reserves and transfers over time.
Those documents should help establish something that public statements alone cannot:
When was the current financial trajectory first clearly visible, what decisions followed, and where did the money go?
Those answers may validate much of the Township’s current explanation.
They may also raise additional questions.
Either outcome is useful.
The records requests are already underway
This review is not ending with the numbers currently available to the public. To date, we have submitted four separate Right-to-Know requests to Manheim Township seeking the underlying financial model used to support the proposed tax increase, FY2027 budget working papers, historical financial warnings provided to commissioners, and detailed records tracking General Fund cash, reserves and transfers dating back to 2020.
Those records should help answer two of the most important questions surrounding this story: When did Township officials know the current financial trajectory was unsustainable, and exactly how were the Township’s reserves used as the problem developed?
We will publish and analyze those records as they are received.
The tax question comes after the accounting
Manheim Township may eventually conclude that a significant property-tax increase is unavoidable.
Residents may ultimately decide that maintaining the current level of Township services is worth paying more.
But that decision should come after a complete examination of the financial history — not before it.
Before taxpayers are asked to absorb an increase approaching 70%, they deserve to understand:
How long the structural deficit has existed.
How quickly reserves were being depleted.
Where staffing and operating costs increased.
Which services drove those increases.
What corrective actions were considered previously.
What assumptions are driving the current projections.
And whether there are realistic alternatives to the proposed combination of taxes, fees and spending reductions.
The crisis may be real.
The need for action may be real.
But urgency should not replace scrutiny.
If anything, the size of the proposed tax increase makes scrutiny more important.
Before Manheim Township decides how much more residents should pay, residents deserve a complete accounting of how the Township got here.
Don’t speculate. Document.