Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Month – June 2011

Toll Road Privatization – Is this the Answer to State’s Infrastructure Problems?

June 16, 2011
2 Comments

Huffington Post today contained a timely article on the privatization of highways and their tolling, Toll Road Privatization: As Ohio Considers It, Indiana Serves As Cautionary Tale.

The article discusses that state’s across the country are looking at privatizing highways as a way to finance necessary infrastructure repairs. One interesting tolling concept discussed would privatize Interstate 95 and the Capital Beltway around my hometown, Washington, DC. Partnering with private investors using an 80-year lease, the plan would develop a ‘HOT’ (high occupancy toll) lanes. Here’s way the plan would work – if you are a commuter with 3 people in a car you won’t have to pay a toll but if you are commuting with 2 people, you would pay a toll to ride in the fast lane. This plan would guarantee revenue for the length of the lease. A HOV lane typically requires 2 persons in the car but in this instance, a HOT lane rewards those commuters with 3 or more persons — no toll.

Jeremy Roebuck of MontCo Memo, a blogger writing on Montgomery County politics and communities writes an interesting post today on the Montgomery County politics of the tolling of 422. Looks like there are some Montgomery County politicians who believe to support 422 tolling could be their poison pill in November. Here’s Roebuck’s post:

MontCo Memo, www.philly.com – posted by Jeremy Roebuck

For whom 422 tolls?

Well, that didn’t take long…

A week ago Montgomery County’s commissioner candidates adopted a mostly wait-and-see attitude regarding the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s plan to toll 422 to fund much-needed, congestion-easing improvements. This week, all four have come out against the plan.

Incumbent Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. and his Republican ticket running mate Jenny Brown, a Lower Merion Commissioner, released a statement Wednesday declaring their opposition. Said Brown: “The taxpayers have already paid for route 422, and tolling in this circumstance is not appropriate.”

Brown has a history of being a fiscally conservative hawk on Lower Merion’s board of supervisors, so no surprises there. Castor, who said last week he wasn’t crazy about the idea but needed more information, joined Brown in full-throated condemnation Wednesday.

Not to be outdone, Democratic candidates State Rep. Josh Shapiro and Whitemarsh Supervisor Leslie Richards released a joint-statement of their own, also poo-pooing the prospects of tolls: “We are committed to reducing congestion on our roadways–particularly along the Rt. 422 corridor. While we are in search of workable solutions to address our infrastructure needs, we are opposed to the Rt. 422 tolling plan.” Last week, Richards said she looked forward to seeing what the DVRPC was going to propose.

It was always going to be a tough sell. To pass, the DVRPC’s plan needs approval first from the state assembly — which must approve legislation allowing locally run tolling authorities in the state. Then, county commissioners had to come together in Montgomery, Chester and Berks Counties to create such an authority here.

And while many state and local politicos agree in private that the tolling proposal is the only way 422’s congestion will be eased any time soon, it’s become political poison among the area’s cash-strapped commuters.

Don’t think for a second those political factors haven’t weighed on the minds of the DVRPC’s planners. Unveiling the plan during a county election year is a gamble as it is sure to become an issue in commissioners’ campaigns in the three counties. But putting it off another year, would drop the question right in the middle of State Assembly races. (State Rep. Warren Kampf, R., Chester, has already shown the power of taking a strong anti-toll stance. He unseated incumbent Paul Drucker in part on a platform opposed to tolling.)

Still, Joseph M. Hoeffel III — vice chair of MontCo’s commissioners’ board, head of the DVRPC, and one of the tolling plan’s chief proponents — thinks there’s still room to navigate these tricky political waters.

Then again, he’s not running for re-election.

Cowboy Tattoo Ranch no more . . . Paoli Town Center Project Coming to Paoli!

June 16, 2011
7 Comments

It’s official!

A block of empty storefronts on Lancaster Ave. in Paoli has been sold to group of Paoli investors. Included in the sale of this retail block is the now vacated infamous Cowboy Tattoo Ranch. With a design rendering titled, ‘Paoli Town Center’ by Architetra (shown below) I am certain that I join the community in welcoming the new owners and their redevelopment plans to the neighborhood!

It is my understanding that the row of buildings is slated for a makeover and facelift. Although not confirmed, I believe that the lower level will be retail space and the second floor either office space or apartments. I am not sure on the timeline for the project, but the ink is dry on the paperwork so I am looking forward to an exciting new look to this section of Lancaster Avenue in Paoli.

Located directly across Lancaster Avenue from the Paoli Train Station, here’s hoping that this latest redevelopment project is an encouraging economic sign and means good news for movement on the Paoli Transportation Center project!

TESD’s EIT Tax Study Group . . . You Have until Midnight Tonight to Apply!

June 15, 2011
28 Comments

I attended the TESD Public Information Committee meeting yesterday . . . primarily to fully understand the selection process for committee members and the mission of the Earned Income Tax (EIT) Tax Study Group.

Several months ago, the T/E school board decided to create a citizen tax study group and sent postcards to Tredyffrin and Easttown township residents asking those interested to fill out an application and submit it to the school district – tonight at midnight, June 15 is the deadline.

According to the application, “This citizen group will study the effects that an Earned Income Tax (EIT) would have on the School District and its residents. Following its study, the Tax Study Group members will present the pros and cons of an EIT to the School Board and the community. Tax Study Group members must be willing to be introduced publicly as the Tax Study Group and be willing to present information at one or two televised meetings. The Tax Study Group will meet up to eight times in September and October 2011.”

The EIT tax study group application contains 19 questions ranging from age, gender to level of education, profession, whether or not you currently pay an EIT and two important questions (in my opinion) Why do you wish to be a member of the Tax Study Group? and what particular expertise could you bring to the Tax Study Group?

Part of the Public Information Committee meeting agenda was to look at the selection process of the nine members that would form this tax study group. At the meeting, the school board members began constructing the process. As a means of distancing themselves personally from the members that were to be chosen, it was determined that it would be a blind, random choice based on specific criteria. For the sake of anonymity and fairness, the school board members would not know the names and addresses of the applicants.

I sat and listened as the five board members attending the meeting (Debbie Bookstaber, Karen Cruickshank, Kevin Buraks, Anne Crowley and Betsy Fadem) prepared their list of criteria in order of priority. Their order of priority of criteria for selection on the tax study group is:

1. 3 members of the group to be Easttown Residents; 6 members of the group to be Tredyffrin residents.
2. There should be a mix of people who (a) currently pay an EIT elsewhere; (b) those who are residents and work in the district and for which an EIT would be a new tax and (c) those residents that are retired and therefore would not be paying an EIT. It was suggested to include 4 members that currently pay an EIT and to include 5 members for whom an EIT would be a new tax.
3. 2-3 members should have school age children in T/E
4. Age of applicant
5. Gender of applicant
6. Renters
7. Business background

There were only 3 audience members at this meeting (1 Easttown resident and 2 Tredyffrin residents) and I sat rather impatiently listening to their criteria; not quite believing that what I viewed as the most important baseline criteria was not mentioned. As they were completing their list of criteria, I reminded them that at the school board meeting when this was originally discussed, it was agreed that the tax study group would be ‘apolitical’. I mentioned that the application had not addressed the poltical issue but recalled that Kevin Mahoney specifically suggested that current school board members and township supervisors as well as candidates for the school board and township supervisors be excluded from the group. I asked how those specific would be excluded if the names were not to be known in the selection.

To their credit, the board members immediately placed that at the top of the criteria and assured me that staff would pull any of those applications. Seeking further clarification, I asked about ‘former’ school board members or ‘former’ township supervisors – were their applications suitable. Yes. What about applicants with connections to the local political parties, were their applications suitable. The answer was yes. This suggests that Democratic or Republican committee people (or those individuals closely associated with local political campaigns) are suitable applicants for the tax study group. Attempting to further explain this study group needs to be apolitical, I suggested that when the 9 members of the group are known, the public will recogonize if these individuals are in the category of ‘political’. I have attended enough school board, finance and budget meetings to know that if 25 residents show up to any of these meetings, that is a lot of interest. Therefore, when I learned yesterday, they have received 150 applications, I do not think it is a stretch to assume that there may be some politics going on. I want this to be a very positive and informational experience for the community; not a tax study group that is tainted with politics. I am hoping that this Community Matters post will give the board time to reflect before the members of the tax study group are chosen.

The other troubling aspect of the criteria selection was that the 2 questions at the end of the application – Why do you wish to be a member and what particular expertise could you bring to the group were overlooked and may be all but forgotten in the selection process. It is important to have qualified people as members of this tax study group. We live in a community that is rich with residents with skills, background and expertise, so shouldn’t that be a major factor in the selection? In addition, ‘why’ someone wants to participate is also very telling and should be factored in the choice.

As for the actual process of the selection – it is my understanding that the decision will be made at the Finance Committee meeting on Monday, June 20. The residents chosen for the tax study group will be called and asked of their willingness to participate. All applicants will be put in to individual groups and the names randomly chosen. They feel that renters are needed in the mix and to date, there is not a single renter among the 150 applications. If you are a numbers person, happen to be a renter and want a seat at the tax study table, the odds are in your favor.

I hope that the EIT Tax Study Group selection process goes well and that residents are offering to participate for the right reason. I suggest the process be documented prior to the selection of the members; otherwise, residents are going to look at the school board members if there is a problem.

What’s the Price of a Hamburger in T/E? Property Taxes to Increase by 3.77%

June 14, 2011
9 Comments

In case you have not heard, the T/E School Board voted to approve the final 2011-12 budget last night . . . and yes folks; the residents of TESD will receive a 3.77% property tax increase. The vote count on the budget was 7-2; Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were the dissenting votes. I guess I should have expected this outcome, but was surprised nonetheless. I left the school board meeting feeling that the decision was preordained and that no amount of discussion was going to change anything.

At the June 1 school board meeting, the school board voted to accept the TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown non-instructional group) union’s agreement amendment for no salary increase for 2011-12. The school board decided not to out-source the custodial service; thus saving $300K in salaries and additionally $150K in overtime costs, for a total of approximately $450K savings to TESD. Many of the custodial staff are T/E residents, so the board decision saved some local jobs.

It was my understanding that at last night’s board meeting, the public would have the details about the custodian outsourcing RFP bidding process – how many custodian companies bid the job, what was the range of their bids, etc. I was disappointed that custodian outsourcing was not on the agenda, nor was there any discussion on the topic. If I want further information, I guess it would require filing a right-to-know request. I am not suggesting that the school board’s choice was incorrect; I just think that the public has a right to know the details pertaining to their decision.

Ray Clarke also attended the meeting last night and I am pleased to offer his notes from the meeting below. You will note that Ray mentions school board member Kevin Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to the cost of ‘hamburgers’. Out of context, his comparison is difficult to understand; so I have included the video clip prepared by Bob Byrne, editor of TE Patch. To understand Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to hamburgers, you will need to click here for the video.

Ray Clark’s T/E School Board Meeting, 6/13/11 Notes

The School Board approved by a 7-2 vote a 2011/12 budget that differed only marginally from the preliminary one, a result of removing the $150,000 contribution from the food service fund, thus increasing the draw from the general fund.

Only Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were consistent in standing up for taxpayers. (On the other side, though, only Kevin Mahoney, Anne Crowley and Kevin Buraks spoke up for the budget – at their peril, though, see below. And, does Jim Bruce ever contribute anything to important issues?).

The increase results in a millage rate calculated to six significant figures (18.6474), in order (as was stated) to capture every last cent of permissible blood from the taxpayer stone. This despite the points below made by most of the board that spoke – regardless of which way they voted!

1. The amount of year’s tax increase does not change the structural budget problem in subsequent years.

2. There is a $29 million general fund balance, earning next-to-no interest, and which will be depleted by less than 7% under the proposed budget (with another 7% contingency for everything including the kitchen sink).

3. Since the preliminary budget, the district has received $1.2 million of union sacrifices. The taxpayer sees no benefit of those.

4. Since the preliminary budget, the state house and senate are working on bills that will likely restore the >$1 million capricious social security reimbursement cut in Corbett’s budget.

5. The district has consistently over the years held the line at the Act 1 Index increase, up until now.

6. The aggregate metropolitan area is is managing with less than two thirds of T/E’s increase.

Crowley sees the maximum increase for 2011/12 as key to maintaining the education program long term, while Buraks likened the TE educational product to hamburger, priced (tax rate? tax amount? spending per student?) just less than Great Valley’s and more substantially below Lower Merion’s. Since the product is arguably at least as good, we should be just fine with increasing the price. The very same argument that the union have used for years to ratchet up compensation and get us into today’s mess!

Let’s just continue this analogy: People chose to live here because they appreciate hamburgers, and they like the value of T/E’s. Increases beyond the competition’s remove that value. They also like that the other customers share their values and that eating with them at the stand enhances the value of the meal, and indeed they volunteer at the hamburger stand to make the product even better. Nothing whatsoever to do with the amount spent for the burgers themselves. Also remember that T/E’s product is inherently better value because it has made lower cost restaurant location choices than, say, LM, and has better scale in its operations than, say, Radnor, and has more non-consuming commercial interests that contribute to its cost.

Another disappointing item on the “Consent Agenda”: the approval of pricing for contracted services for 2011/12. The Board voted to approve 10 pages of supplier prices for mostly special education services but also many facilities contractors, “orthopedic specialist”, lawyers, “schooldude.com”, etc. etc. This information was in the online agenda, but not in the meeting hand out. Why?

But that’s not the point. From the information presented there was no way to tell how prices compared with this year’s or where the spend is likely to be concentrated. We do know that the architect hourly fees are down and the solicitor costs are flat, but what about the rest? There’s a budget strategy to get supplier costs down – how much did this list contribute to that strategy? There is no indication that the Board received any information on which to base their approval of the pricing. Even though there is no commitment to purchase, this just is not acceptable governance practice.

Also: a) A lot going on in Harrisburg; unpredictable, but tending to shift the balance of power towards districts/taxpayers and away from unions, and b) Facilities wants to move forward with a trial rental of Teamer Field on week-ends, and battle lines seem to be forming.

Every Vote Does Count . . . Duffy Concedes Special Election to Heaberg

June 14, 2011
2 Comments

“You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”
~ Molly Duffy

Although questions remain surrounding the malfunctioning voting machines and how 61 ballots were not originally counted, the special election ballots have been satisfactorily reconciled and as of tonight, Molly Duffy (D) has conceded the race to Mike Heaberg (R). As a result of the special election, Heaberg will complete the vacated term of Warren Kampf, until January 2012.

Chester County Voter Services has updated their website and are now indicating their results as official and certified. Steve Shapiro, Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin’s W2 precinct has compiled the results of the election precinct by precinct into spreadsheets and kindly offers them to Community Matters readers.

  • For comparison of unofficial to certified results by candidate, click here.
  • For comparison of unofficial to certified results by party, click here.

Duffy and Heaberg will be on the ballot in the general election, along with Kristen Mayock (R) and Ernie Falcone (D). In November voters will choose 2 at-large supervisors between Heaberg, Duffy, Mayock and Falcone.

Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, provided the following press release on the Tredyffrin Township’s special election results.

Duffy Looks Long Term for Supervisor

Wayne, PA, June 13, 2011— Certification of the Special Election vote for Tredyffrin Supervisor should be announced this week after a complete manual count of ballots and full reconciliation by Chester County’s Voter Services. While there has still been no plausible explanation of how 61 ballots could have gone uncounted on Election Day, Democratic candidate Molly Duffy’s 40-vote lead on election night has fallen to a two vote deficit, out of over 4500 ballots cast.

Molly Duffy said this about the race and result: “I want to thank all those who supported me and voted for me, especially my family. Statistically the result of our campaign’s hard work feels like a ‘virtual tie.’ But it only takes one vote to win. We put forth a tremendous effort and showed that running a campaign based on qualifications and issues resonated with voters. Everyone should be heartened, not heart-broken, over the photo finish in the special election.

I know I’m looking forward to the November election for a full four-year term as Supervisor. I’ll keep stressing the important issues facing our township: We need to revitalize our business corridors, improve traffic management, and provide safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists. It is vital that we maintain the quality of township services expected in Tredyffrin, including police and fire protection, while holding the line on taxes.

Our campaign noted my work with municipalities—including other municipalities, in addition to Tredyffrin. I’ve worked on business improvement and transportation plans, including for Paoli. I’m running for Supervisor because I believe in finding and implementing solutions.

It takes Supervisors with a bent toward action and some far-sightedness to help realize the community’s vision. We’re fortunate to be living in a wonderful community. I want to help preserve its virtues and enrich it as a great place to live.

Thanks again to everyone who came out to vote and made May an exciting election. I hope you will remember my experience and my vision, and bring some friends along to vote for me on November 8.

You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”

Random Files: short news updates

June 12, 2011
7 Comments

Tredyffrin’s Special Election Results . . . Chester County Voter Services completed the hand count of the Duffy/Heaberg Special Election ballots from the May 17 primary a couple of weeks ago. Originally, the count indicated Heaberg ahead by 3 votes but a provisional ballot for Duffy was found; 2 votes currently separate the candidates. Due to many malfunctioning voting machines countywide, it is my understanding that voter services has been working overtime to certify the election results by the 30-day deadline on June 17. Look for the results to be certified early this week; word has it that alignment issues with Republican ballots heads the list of possible reasons for the problem. Does make you wonder about prior close elections . . . here’s hoping that whatever the problem, it is thoroughly researched (and corrected) prior to November’s general election.

Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook Shopping Center . . . Empty for a year, we had heard that the Bottom Dollar Grocery chain was going to take the vacant space but that offer fell through. The next development in March of this year, Centro Properties sold 588 shopping centers (including Chesterbrook) to private equity giant, Blackstone Group for $9.4 billion. Although the lease sign remains on Genuardi’s, there has been recent movement in the last few days. Paul Prestia, a local attorney with Ratner Prestia in Westlakes is floating an idea to the community to create a food co-op in the former Genuardi’s space. Using a model similar to Swarthmore Co-op, www.swarthmore.coop/ it would specialize in locally sourced and organic food. This is an interesting redevelopment idea for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center and I will be curious to see if it develops further.

Brian O’Neill . . . the King of Prussia developer behind the Uptown Worthington project in Malvern is back in the news. The O’Neill Properties vs. Citizens Bank trial is slated to begin in December and O’Neill has dramatically reduced his original $billion+ demands down to $297 million. Once the parties reach a settlement, construction is expected to get underway again at Worthington. O’Neill’s vision remains for Uptown Worthington – the ‘Center City of Great Valley’. His vision will require more than the current two stores, Wegnman’s and Target, on the 100+ acres.

T/E School Budget . . . The TESD school board makes the final 2011-12 budget vote on Monday night, June 13, 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School. Property tax increase is projected at 3.8%. Click here for the agenda.

EIT Tax Study Group . . . Applications are still being accepted from Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for the TESD EIT Tax Study Group – deadline for applications is Wednesday, June 15. The TESD Public Information meeting is Tuesday, June 14 and the selection process will be discussed. There are to be 9 committee members chosen and my understanding is that 100 applications have been received to date. Click here for the application. The success of the tax study group depends on a non-political selection process and committee membership.

HARB no more . . . As of the May Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Tredyffrin’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) was replaced by a Historic Commission. With an expanding mission to protect historic properties in the township, I was pleased that supervisors showed their support of preserving the township’s historic resources with a unanimous vote. I am expecting great things from our new commission, and am excited to be part of it.

Planning Commission – Where’s the Sidewalk Ordinance amendment on your agenda . . . I was very surprised to see that the sidewalk ordinance discussion is off this week’s Planning Commission agenda. The proposed ordinance amendment establishes the criteria for the requirement to construct sidewalks and establish a fee in lieu of construction procedure and is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, June 20. Having attended the last Planning Commission meeting, it appeared commissioners had not reached a consensus on the ordinance, so why is it off the agenda for their meeting?

For those that may have forgotten, the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue remains outstanding since December 2009. The land development agreement between the township and St. Davids requiring sidewalks is now 4 or 5 (?) years old and yet the clock continues to tick (and tick, and tick). Whose responsibility is to enforce the sidewalks at St. Davids? It is now eighteen months since the St. Davids sidewalk issue was ‘set aside’ by Tredyffrin’s supervisors and, to date there remains no resolution in the matter.

Is the sidewalk issue going to be the 2011 supervisor campaign issue, as the 422 issue was to the 2010 State House race? Adding a new twist to the continuing sidewalk saga, supervisor Paul Olson (R) is up for re-election from the eastern district. Having served as supervisor for 30 years, he is on record as opposing the St. Davids sidewalk; proclaiming it the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’. Olson’s opponent in the supervisor race, Tory Snyder (D) is a Planning Commissioner and served as chair of the sidewalks subcommittee. She supports the green routes network and the sidewalks component of the township’s comprehensive plan. Olson and Snyder are scheduled to square off against each other in November’s general election.

Valley View Shopping Center . . . If you haven’t driven down this section of 252 lately, you might be surprised at the level of activity. The redevelopment of the old Bargain Bookstore is well underway; it appears that they are gutting both floors of the building for a new branch of Mealey’s Furniture. In the same shopping center, the old Charlie Brown Restaurant is undergoing much change for its transformation in to a new McKenzie Brew House. Originally slated for completion in September, signs point that the microbrewery is on schedule.

The ‘To Toll or Not to Toll’ Discussion Continues . . . A Personal Response from State Rep Warren Kampf

June 10, 2011
16 Comments

The ‘To Toll or Not to Toll’ discussion continues . . . the tolling of 422 continues to make headlines and yesterday was a busy day for legislators on either side of the issue.

In an op-ed article (6/9/11) in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Joe Hoeffel (D), vice chair of the Montgomery County Commission and chair of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, wrote, “there isn’t enough state or federal money for the job. The state has budgeted $250 million for the Route 422 corridor over the next decade, but transportation experts agree that $750 million is needed. And nobody believes the legislature or Congress will provide that kind of funding anytime soon. Without a new funding source, 422 will not be fixed for at least 30 years, according to projections by the state Department of Transportation. By that time, the highway will be gridlocked for much of the day.” Hoeffel supports tolling of 422 and believes that a modest toll could generate $800 million in a few years.

Opposing the tolling of 422, state representatives David Maloney, (R) Berks, Marcy Toepel, (R) Montgomery, Tom Quigley, (R) Montgomery and Warren Kampf (R), our 157th district representative, held a news conference in Phoenixville yesterday. Calling the 422 project, the Hoeffel Tolling Plan, these local legislators do not believe that tolling is a viable option to pay for infrastructure improvements. Click here for a short video clip of the press conference.

There continues to be much written and discussed about the tolling of 422. Depending on how you feel about the topic, you can find supporters on either side of the issue; those for tolling and those against tolling. However, regardless of your personal views on tolling, I think we can all agree that the traffic congestion on 422 is a commuter’s nightmare and that something needs to change, and. . . we need people with a vision to encourage that change.

We aware that our own state representative continues to stand behind his ‘no tolling of 422′ campaign message — but it was unclear to me whether Kampf considered that Route 422 was actually a traffic problem. Seeking clarification on his ‘422 traffic’ position, I sent him this simple email a couple of days ago:

Dear Rep. Kampf,

As my elected State Representative, do you believe that there is a traffic problem on Route 422?

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Pattye Benson

As some of you are aware, my previous communication with Kampf has not always been the most successful. Now that he is our elected state representative, I was curious to see if anything had changed and admit I was pleasantly surprised that he took the time to send a personal and lengthy response. I believe that there is value in my sharing his response and have notified him that I would be adding it to today’s post on Community Matters. His reply to my email:

Pattye:

Thank you for your email. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may have heard, I am on record as being against tolling 422. I believe that this “toll” is just another name for a tax on the already overburdened commuters of that roadway. But I recognize that 422 is a transportation problem for commuters.

The idea to address 422’s needs without tolling is not solely mine; Governor Corbett has convened a Transportation Funding Advisory Committee that is looking at over 50 prospective ways to address the funding gap for our road/bridge infrastructure (tolling is one of the options but in no way is it the only option being discussed). I believe that prioritizing, finding cost savings and advocacy for our regional roadways must be tools considered as part of the discussion too.

I have empathy for the people who drive that roadway, and I have my own personal experience on 422 to draw from. We all pay the same gas taxes and vehicle fees that others in Pennsylvania pay, but the response to fix our road has been to ask my constituents to pay up to $5 a day more for the privilege of driving that road! That just seems unfair.

Other areas have had road and bridge needs addressed. PennDOT does have a larger plan for the area’s roads. As you know, 202 is getting significant improvement. Route 309 was also rebuilt. These projects came to fruition not with tolling revenue but with the already existing sources within the Commonwealth that I mentioned above. Why is 422 unique?

There is over $240 Million currently programmed for improvement of 422 during the next eight (8) years within the PennDOT plans. This is in the plan without tolling. While it is not enough, and does not come fast enough, it will be a good start. Tolling does not appear likely to make this set of improvements happen any faster that I can tell. Further, this proposal is being billed as a public private partnership, but fundamentally it is almost entirely public money—both tolls and other transportation funding—that will pay for these improvements. Finally, there is a rail line proposal in the mix here, paid for with toll money. While I certainly recognize the attractiveness of restored rail to towns like Phoenixville, this will in all likelihood require management by SEPTA, or some such entity, and we know such rail lines usually run at a significant deficit year in and year out. That cost will ultimately pass on to the taxpayers, and I campaigned on a platform that promised the taxpayer, in tough times such as these and in good times, a seat at the table when these decisions are made. I feel I am making good on that commitment but seeking alternatives.

As a final thought, we built 422 with public money. We have maintained it with public money. We have continued to collect those monies and have an obligation to serve the people who drive that road. One could argue it would be a violation of the public trust to change the game now and introduce tolls. The 422 corridor continues to grow in large part because of the access that road provides. Indeed, it is a road regularly used for shopping and other trips not related to “commuting.” I believe my constituents feel as I do, and I welcome your input.

Thank you for your question.

Warren

The Clock is Ticking Down for T/E School Budget . . . Will Property Tax Increase be the Highest of our Neighbors

June 9, 2011
33 Comments

The clock is ticking down . . . the T/E School Board votes on the final budget for 2011-12 on Monday, June 13, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. The preliminary school budget contained a property tax increase of 3.8%. Will that tax increase remain in the final budget or is possible that the school board members may consider a lower increase?

The school board and the administration have battled their way through the 2011-12 budget since last fall, with regular school board meetings as well as finance and special budget meetings. The board and administration thoroughly reviewed many budget strategies and made difficult educational and programming decisions. The school district reached agreements for the 2011-12 school year with the teachers union (TEEA) and with the non-instructional union (TENIG). In the spirit of shared sacrifice, union members from TEEA and TENIG showed their support for the school district and agreed to a variation of a salary freeze to help the bottom line of the District’s 2011-12 budget.

According to the TEEA agreement with the T/E school district, the teachers will have their salaries frozen for the first 6 months of the 2011-12 school year based on their final paycheck of the 2010-11 school year. As part of the agreement, TESD agreed there would be no involuntary furloughing or involuntary demotion of teachers for 2011-12. The cost savings for the TEEA agreement is approximately $1 Million to the school district.

The agreement reached between TENIG and TESD is a zero percent wage increase for the 2011-12 school year. The savings to the school district with TENIG’s salary freeze is $300K. Adding the additional reduced overtime wages and the total TENIG savings to the District is approximately $450K.

The school board members applauded the efforts of TEEA and TENIG . . . the combined total help from the two unions represents nearly $1.5 million in savings to the school district.

Here’s my question . . . given the substantial level of savings, due to TEEA and TENIG’s spirit of shared sacrifice, will the school board also recognize the ongoing sacrifices of the taxpayers in this school district? Will the school board consider a reduction in the proposed 3.8% property tax increase? The preliminary 2011-12 budget could not predict the $1.5 million savings from the unions, so should the taxpayers expect the final budget to reflect those savings? I believe that the 3.8% includes taking the full Act 1 exemptions but maybe in light of the union savings, the percentage increase could be reduced.

In anticipation of TESD’s final budget vote on Monday, I thought it would be interesting to see where the currently projected 3.8% property tax increase measures up against other local school districts. I think that it is fair to use Radnor, Lower Merion and Great Valley school districts for comparison. Generally speaking, these school districts are comparable in level of education quality and I would think that the economic climate of the taxpayers is similar. Each of these school districts has approved their final budgets —

  • Radnor Township School District – 1.4% tax increase Lowest RDSD tax increase in years. RTSD credited the Radnor teachers’ sacrifice in reaching a contract agreement for the low tax increase.
  • Great Valley School District – 2.9% tax increase GVSD Superintendent Alan Lonoconus, said of the tax increase, “We tried very hard this year to make sure the impact to programs was as gentle as possible. But we also kept in mind the economic conditions not only of our district, but of the nation.”
  • Lower Merion School District – 3.3% tax increase Lowest tax increase since 1984-84 fiscal year

Although not an adjacent school district and perhaps not as highly ranked academically as Radnor, Great Valley, Lower Merion and T/E school districts, I was fascinated by West Chester School District’s final budget decision —

  • West Chester School District – NO tax increase. The 0 percent tax increase balanced WCSD budget by taking $3 million from their fund balance.

It is not surprising that the taxpayers of WCSD overwhelming supported the decision of their school board leaders not to increase taxes. In reviewing the demands of their school budget over the last months, there was much discussion between school board members and residents in regard to the severe economic conditions facing the residents, rising gas prices, high unemployment, etc. Many taxpayers in the WCSD complained that they are already financially pushed to the limit — the 0 percent tax increase decision came as welcomed news.

As it now stands, unless the T/E school board members reconsider, a property tax increase of 3.8% is on the table for a vote at Monday night’s school board meeting; this increase will represent the highest increase among our neighbors. TESD is a great school district, and one for which we all can be proud, but likewise could be said for Lower Merion, Great Valley and Radnor school districts. My guess is that the argument that some will make is that TESD currently has a lower tax rate than these other mentioned school districts and therefore taxpayers are in a better position to afford the tax increase. Correct?

I have not done a research analysis but I believe that TESD may have the highest fund balance of any of these neighboring school districts. (In fact, I think I read somewhere that TESD fund balance is one of the highest in the state). Some could argue that the fund balance represents over-taxing of residents in prior years, so . . . now that the taxpayers of this community need financial relief can we ask that the TESD use more of the reserve and lessen our property tax increase?

To help the community, the teachers, secretaries, custodians, cooks and maintenance personnel in this school district have shown us the meaning of shared sacrifice. Is it possible that TESD will acknowledge the sacrifices of the District taxpayers, and lower the expected property tax increase? Or, is this just wishful thinking on my part . . . ?

Looks like the 422 Tolling Vision has Taken a Step Forward to Becoming Tomorrow’s Reality!

June 7, 2011
30 Comments

The vision of some to toll 422 moved one step closer to a reality yesterday . . . and by all accounts, did so with flying colors.

Barry Seymour of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) along with Joe Hoeffel, Montgomery County Commissioner presented the 422-tolling proposal to the Governors Transportation Funding Advisory Commission. To review the 422 Corridor Plus slide presentation from the meeting, click here. — I found the information detailed and informative; helped to give me a better picture on the scope of the project.

I was curious to hear the comments and reactions to the 422 presentation and spoke with a Paoli resident who attended the Harrisburg meeting. Reportedly, there was no tolling opposition from the advisory group – in fact, there was much positive feedback from those in attendance. Although this meeting is only the first step in a long process, it seems that the DVRPC’s presentation answered several of the questions that I had —

If approved, what the timeline for the 422 project: 2015.
How much commuter time saved: DVRPC estimates 20 min.
Toll costs: A range, $.50 – $2.65, depending on distance travelled. Four electronic toll booths to be constructed; drivers to use EZ pass.

As discussed earlier, the management of the 422 tolling project would remain local and all revenue generated from the project would be used for local projects, including the light rail commuter train. I don’t know how I feel about creating another commission or board for this project. According to a friend, this project could fall under the umbrella of the PA Turnpike Commission with a mandate to keep the tolls generated from 422 locally in Berks, Montgomery and Chester counties. If that’s the case, why create another board; why not have the project fall under the Turnpike Commissioner’s responsibility. I guess the thought is if the project is handled separately under local management, it helps sell the project to residents and possibly adds a level guarantee that the tolling dollars remain here.

In asking how the project would be funded, I was told that initially it would be funded with a $1 billion bond, which would be repaid by tolling revenue. I’m guessing that the bond issue needs support from the local municipalities involved – would the funding of the project require a voter referendum in the Chester, Montgomery and Berks county districts involved?

Looks like the 422 tolling vision of some has taken a step forward to becoming tomorrow’s reality!

For Whom the Road Tolls: Day of Reckoning for Rt. 422 Tolling Begins

June 5, 2011
14 Comments

The tolling of Rt. 422 was front-page headlines in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Rising to the top of the local news charts, the tolling of 422 is not ‘new’ news for most of us. Unless you have had your head buried in the sand, you could not have missed this much discussed campaign topic during the last State House 157 election cycle. There was much heated debate from both sides on the ‘to toll or not to toll’ 422 issue.

If you are one of the 110,000+ commuters who daily sit in parking lot gridlock, known as Rt. 422, it looks like there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Tomorrow (Monday), Barry Seymour of Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) will present agenda item, ‘US 422 Plus: A Proposal for Funding Improvements’ (click here for agenda) to the Governors Transportation Funding Advisory Committee. The DVRPC $625K plan “would create a locally run authority to collect 11 cents per mile and keep that money to fund improvements such as new lanes”. Seymour hopes his DVRPC plan will convince the advisory committee and ultimately Gov. Corbett of the value of the 422-tolling project.

If granted legislative approval, the project would become the first locally managed highway toll system of its kind in Pennsylvania . . . a ‘model’ for the state. All of the revenue would be devoted to 422-corridor projects and DVRPC plan supporters believe that making Rt. 422 a toll road in Berks, Montgomery and Chester counties is the only way to pay for a new passenger-rail service to Reading and to finance the badly needed upgrades to the congested highway.

Others voice opposition to the 422 tolling issue, including our own State Rep Warren Kampf. Still standing behind his campaign promise to voters not to toll 422, Kampf believes that “Tolling is just another way of taxing people going to work in these hard economic times. They’re already paying a lot of money in gas taxes and other fees” and he doesn’t “think that this is something they want.”

Where does this leave the frustrated, brake-slamming, horn-worthy commuters who suffer the daily use of Route 422? Maybe answers will emerge as the day of reckoning begins in Harrisburg tomorrow.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme