The documented timeline provides an important distinction between preliminary planning and official Board action:

• April 6: Eric Fairchild is documented coordinating the initiative.

• April 14: Karen Overly-Smith becomes directly involved.

• May 11 at 2:00 p.m.: All five Commissioners participate in an informational gathering with the consultants.

• May 20 at 6:30 p.m.: The full Board publicly deliberates and unanimously approves the consultants’ proposal.

• June 17: The public record states that Natural Lands withdrew because it did not believe the proposed timeline could be met.

• August 3 at 6:30 p.m.: Final consideration of the referendum ordinance is scheduled.

Transparency requires a clear public record of when preliminary discussions began, who participated, and when the full Board took official action.

Based on Upper Allen Township’s 2025 General Fund report, the Township received $3,558,845.12 in current-year Earned Income Tax revenue.

A proposed 1/10th of 1% EIT increase would raise the Township’s EIT portion from 0.50% to 0.60%. Since 0.10% is 20% of the current Township EIT rate, that would generate an estimated $711,769.02 in additional annual revenue.

Bottom line: Yes, this would be a tax increase — specifically an Earned Income Tax increase — and based on the Township’s 2025 General Fund report, the estimated additional revenue would be $711,769.02 per year.

Residents should have clear, factual information when discussing this issue.

A Board packet is the set of materials prepared for a public meeting so commissioners and the public can review the items in advance. It typically includes the meeting agenda, prior meeting minutes for approval, consent agenda items, staff and department reports, bill lists or warrant registers, financial or budget updates, resolutions or ordinances, contracts or agreements, engineering or project memos, supporting exhibits, and any other background documents tied to action items or discussion topics. Depending on the meeting, it may also include legal memos, draft policies, maps, bid materials, presentations, proclamations, and attachments related to public projects or administrative matters. In short, it is the meeting’s working file and reference package.

Public records show that Upper Allen Township incurred $24,586.75 in Bishop Bridge-related expenses connected to legal, engineering, administrative, and professional review costs. These expenses occurred while Bishop Bridge remained under Cumberland County ownership, raising a fair public-record question about how continued township spending aligns with the goal of minimizing local taxpayer impact for a bridge the township does not currently own.

Upper Allen Township’s 2017 zoning update was a broad rewrite of the Township’s zoning structure, not a single-property zoning change. The available public records show that the update included draft ordinance language, final adopted zoning documents, a final zoning map, district-by-district use tables, conservation and open-space standards, overlay districts, dimensional standards, parking standards, and use-specific regulations.

The 2017 zoning update should be understood as part of a larger planning process that followed the Township’s adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan. The zoning presentation states that the 2017 Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map updates were aligned with the goals and policy objectives of that Comprehensive Plan, and that the update included rezoning of certain areas, merging of some zoning districts, and revisions to zoning regulations.  

Generations Park has been the subject of public discussion around cost, paving, stormwater, open space, and the meaning of “passive recreation.” This page compares selected public claims with records obtained through Right-to-Know requests, including deed, payment, environmental review, and acquisition materials.

The goal is not to tell residents what to think. The goal is to provide the public-record context needed to form an informed opinion.

Upper Allen Township attempted to address long-standing questions about HARB and the historic districts through the 2022 Navarro & Wright reassessment. The stated purpose of that work was to review the four existing historic districts, research their background, conduct fieldwork, map historic resources and modern infill, and provide recommendations that could help clarify whether each district still met historic-district criteria.   The report concluded that only Shepherdstown retained enough integrity and significance to remain a historic district, while Rosegarden, Trout Run, and Yellow Breeches no longer warranted historic district designation under the National Park Service criteria used by the consultant.   Those recommendations were not adopted exactly as presented. HARB voted on October 18, 2022, to recommend retaining all historic districts with possible boundary clarification, while the Board of Commissioners later voted on November 16, 2022, to dissolve Rosegarden and Trout Run, remove four properties from Shepherdstown, and table action on Yellow Breeches.   PHMC-related comments and later public materials also questioned the report’s use of National Register criteria rather than Pennsylvania Historic District Act standards, which became one reason the reassessment remained disputed rather than serving as a final consensus document.

The released emails show that Bishop Road Bridge preservation was being actively explored in early 2026 through direct coordination with PHMC, Cumberland County, PennDOT, and township representatives. The correspondence reflects discussion of several alternatives to demolition, including rehabilitation, careful disassembly, storage, and possible transfer to a new owner, while agencies worked through the funding and legal questions tied to those options.   

A January 5 email from PHMC’s Tyra Guyton to Eric Fairchild outlined possible funding and review paths, including Keystone Historic Preservation grants, PennDOT-related programs, and the difference between state historic review and federal Section 106 review depending on what permits or funding were involved. Later emails show Eric Fairchild continuing to share bridge materials and preservation examples with PHMC, including historic images and Wrought Iron Bridge Works documents that PHMC said would be added to the bridge record.   

The strongest theme in the emails is funding eligibility. In mid-January, Eric Fairchild raised questions about whether county funding tied to demolition could instead support careful disassembly if the bridge were ultimately preserved for vehicular use. By late January, Cumberland County Planning Director Kirk Stoner formally asked PennDOT and other agency contacts for written guidance on whether county liquid fuels or $5 Local Use Fee money could be used for disassembly and storage, depending on the bridge’s final use. 

To view the files, please click here

The selection results of each individual commissioner for the volunteer vacancy positions were later made available through a Right-to-Know Request titled Volunteer Board Volunteer Rankings. 

The Board of Commissioners does have the authority to appoint individuals to volunteer positions and to choose the process used for those appointments. 

At the same time, the released records show that the rankings were completed outside of public view using a spreadsheet labeled "A–E" with no names on the spreadsheets.  

As a result, residents had questions about how the process aligned with prior discussions around increased transparency. During the meeting, there also appeared to be some uncertainty regarding how the selection method was being carried out. 

To view the files, please click here

Eric Fairchild told Richard Daniels that the Township had created several openings by not reappointing committee members whose terms expired on December 31, 2025. He also referred to openings previously mentioned by Judy Bailey, listed the available volunteer positions, and suggested that the Planning Commission could be a good fit for Daniels’ background.

Supporting records show that a Volunteer Appointment Memo identified three current vacancies on HARB, SAB, and Parks & Recreation. It also noted that Parks already had two candidates awaiting interviews, SAB had one qualified applicant, and HARB had no current applicants. A separate January 1, 2026 Township memo listed the expired board and commission terms, included attendance information, identified one upcoming vacancy, and asked the Board of Commissioners how it wanted to handle reappointments and advertising the openings.

To view the files, please click here.