Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

St. Davids $50K Cash Offer . . . Lots of Questions, But Not So Many Answers!

December 1, 2009
1 Comment

First off, let me say that I truly appreciate the amount of time extended by the BAWG committee on behalf of the residents of Tredyffrin Township. As a committed community volunteer, I understand all too well the amount of time and effort, this project demanded of the BAWG committee.

Now on to last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting, the BAWG report and the St. Davids Golf Club’s $50K cash ‘offer’. The BAWG members were introduced, thanked and given framed commendations for their efforts. It was my understanding that BAWG Chairman Tom Colman would give a summary of the report; he did not, choosing instead to thank the township staff and other BAWG committee members for their willingness to help in the process. I expected that Supervisor Chairman Kampf would then ask if his fellow supervisors or audience members had any questions/comments related to the BAWG report. However, Mr. Kampf did not ask for comments but instead made a motion to accept the BAWG report as a township public document. Without further discussion, all supervisors voted to accept the BAWG report as a permanent document and proceeded on to the budget discussion.

As I had stated in an earlier posting, I intended to ask my questions surrounding the $50K St. Davids Golf Club cash offer contained in the BAWG report. In the official acceptance of the BAWG report as a public document, Mr. Kampf referenced using the report’s recommendations going forward – to me this implied anything contained within the pages of the report could be considered (including the St. Davids ‘offer’) as possible budget revenue sources.

Troubled by the offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the BAWG report as a suggested revenue resource, I decided to publically ask the following questions:

  • Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from?
  • Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee?
  • Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)?
  • If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance? Who has the authority to accept the offer?
  • Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report?
  • Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club?
  • Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St. Davids Golf Club?

Just to ask these questions, became a testament to my patience (and for those who know me, I do not claim patience as one of my virtues). Apparently, Mr. Kampf decided that at first my questions were not budget-related; and therefore could not be asked during the budget discussion. However, having not been given an option to comment on the BAWG report earlier, and knowing that this report was now a public document that could be used in budget discussion, I felt compelled to keep going — to get the questions out there, and hopefully answered.

Finally getting the questions asked, I looked to the supervisors for answers to the ‘mystery’ of the St. Davids Golf Club $50K offer — where did it come from, who made the offer, what’s the timeline, etc. etc. I suggested that acceptance of this offer would be setting precedent for future land development projects (along with usurping the authority of the Planning Commission). In reponse to the question of the St. Davids offer, they knew nothing of any offer and suggested that Tom Colman come to the microphone and address my questions. Mr. Colman’s explanation was that he had just ‘heard’ of the offer, didn’t know from where or from whom, but thought it could have been right here in Keene Hall. He mentioned that the BAWG committee was independent and made decisions on their own, even stating that the Township Solicitor had suggested the removal of the St. Davids offer from the report, but that the BAWG members voted to keep it in.

Following Mr. Colman’s explanation that there was no $50K offer in writing and complete vagueness of the offer’s origination, I once again stepped forward. I told the supervisors that I had read every Board of Supervisor and Planning Commission meeting minutes from 2004 onward and that there was absolutely no discussion of any $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club — was this OK to have a offer in this official public document that had no verification or proof to exist? My sense was that yes we can accept the BAWG report as public document with a suggested revenue source that is not verifiable and has no basis.

I sat there for a full 20 min. as the budget discussion continued on, trying to understand what had just happened. There was an easy solution, a right solution — why couldn’t someone make it? Why not offer the public full disclosure, why not take a stand and do what’s right? For this taxpayer, the St. Davids Golf Club cash offer of $50K appearing in the BAWG report was wrong. If this offer existed (albeit no one was willing to publically admit that the offer existed) where was the proof of its existence? Why wasn’t this so-called offer being seen as a way to allow St. Davids Golf Club off the hook for building the sidewalk? Sure, St. Davids would come out ahead — the cost of the sidewalk is more likely $75-100K, not $50K. What about the authority of the Planning Commission – the sidewalk was part of the acceptance of the St. Davids Golf Club land development agreement? Doesn’t anyone see the potential future problems with setting this kind of precedent?

At the end of the evening, other members of the audience took the stand to make similar remarks about the St. Davids’ offer. There certainly seemed a need from people to understand what they had just witnessed. Under new Board matters, Supervisor DiFilippo made a motion to set up a subcommittee with board members and Planning Commission members to look at the St. Davids offer and how they may be able to deal with future land development situations. Mr. Kampf offered to be on the subcommittee with Ms. DiFilippo. The motion passed, 6-0. This motion confused me further. If there was no actual $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club, why was there a need for a subcommittee to look at it? Or did I just misunderstand the the reason for this subcommittee?

I do not question the integrity of the BAWG members or their commitment to this project. I just believe that if an error or inaccuracy is made, we should try to correct it – I still contend that there is great mystery surrounding the inclusion of St. Davids Golf Club’s $50K cash offer in the BAWG report. I also believe that the St. Davids offer had no business in this official report and should be removed as a possible revenue source. Following the Board of Supervisor meeting, Mr. Colman stopped to tell me that one of the BAWG members, Rob Betts was a St. Davids Golf Club member and that he recused him from votes pertaining to St. Davids.

It is fascinating to look at the dynamics of our local government.

Countdown to Board of Supervisor Meeting. . . Looking for Answers

November 27, 2009
2 Comments

Full Disclosure Request

Where are you going to be Monday night at 7:30 PM? I suggest that you either attend Tredyffrin Twp’s Board of Supervisors meeting or tune in from home.

There are questions swirling in regards to the recently released BAWG report and the suggestion of a $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club in regards to the sidewalk construction. St. Davids Golf Club has been in default since July 2008 to build the sidewalks and now mysteriously this $50K offer from the country club appears in the BAWG report. Since BAWG released its report, I have been trying to get the following questions answered, but to date I have come up short.

  • Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from?
  • Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee?
  • Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)?
  • If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance? Who has the authority to accept the offer?
  • Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report?
  • Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club?
  • Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St. Davids Golf Club?

Prior to Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting (and BAWG presentation), I suggest that you review the timeline (and Planning Commission minutes) that I put together for an earlier blog entry. Click here for St. Davids Golf Club Sidewalks – Is it to Nowhere?

It is my understanding the Tom Colman, Chairman of the BAWG committee will make a public presentation on the report and here’s hoping that there will be time for the public’s questions and answers. This is one taxpayer with questions, and so far . . . no answers.

Looking for School Board Budget Details

November 24, 2009
Comments

I explored the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board website looking for current comprehensive school budget information. I found the final 2009-10 School Board budget which is marked ‘draft’ online. (I am assuming that this became the final budget). The document is actually a 6-page overview — the budget line listings are limited at best. The complete budget for the current fiscal year needs to be posted online. I would also like to see budgets from previous years linked to the school district website, for comparison.

Overwhelmingly, comments received from emails and phone calls have been in regards to teacher salaries, teacher union contracts and the process. Understanding the teacher salaries are the major component in the school district budget, I was hoping to be able to review the salary schedules, health care benefits, tuition reimbursement, union contract information, etc. Unfortunately this level of detail was not available on the district website. I did determine the combined school district salaries and benefits in the 2009-10 budget listed as $71,595,554. If my addition is correct, district salaries and benefits is equivalent to 65% of the total listed expenditures of $110,424,721. Now more than ever, with our continuing economic crisis, full disclosure and transparency is needed and would be welcomed by this taxpayer.

I suggest that the school district’s website include a section where it provides comprehensive information about, and copies of, the school district’s major contracts with employee organizations (unions) entitled to bargain collectively on behalf of teachers. The teacher contracts and benefits account for nearly 2/3 of the total districts costs and commit the school district to maintaining agreed-upon payments over many years. Unions representing teachers in Pennsylvania have the legal right to strike, so I would suggest including information on contract negotiations and proposed terms of future contracts, including:

  • Number of years the contract is proposed to remain in force
  • Salary schedules
  • Summary of health care benefits
  • Retirement incentives (bonuses, continuing health care coverage)
  • Days per year/hours per day worked
  • Tuition reimbursement
  • Other personal benefits
  • Assessment of union dues for non-union members

Not being successful on the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board website, I researched beyond our school district in hopes of understanding the process. What I discovered was great variances in available information and level of transparency among the 501 public school districts in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania spends approximately $22 billion annually on public education from all sources. About 35% of this money is appropriated by the General Assembly and allocated to local districts by formula. These formulas are partly set by programmatic factors (e.g., funds for “basic education” and “special education” are allocated separately) and by measures of a district’s potential tax base. For most Pennsylvania school districts the main source of local revenue is the property tax, followed by either an earned income tax (EIT) or personal income tax (PIT). Local districts have the legal right to levy other taxes, but many have abolished these so-called “nuisance taxes” on various grounds.

Since the passage of Act 1 of 2006, boards must announce during December of the year before a school fiscal year whether they will increase property taxes beyond a formula-determined ceiling or to request exceptions to this ceiling from the state.

All of this being said, do you think that our School Board will consider making more budget details available on the district website along with continuing updates on the 2010-11 budget process? Comments?

Tredyffrin Easttown School District – 7.2% Tax Increase Possible

November 23, 2009
7 Comments

In an update from the Tredyffrin Easttown School District, it is stated that there is a deficit of $1.5 million in the current school year (2009-2010) budget. This deficiency plus the current economic situation is affecting the 2010-11 budget decisions. It is anticipated that the 2010-11 school year’s expenses will exceed revenues by approximately $8 million! Act 1 of the 2006 Pennsylvania Tax Relief Act allows for a 2.9% increase. The 2.9% tax increase would provide additional $2 million revenue. This tax increase would not require voter referendum to pass. The School Board has not raised taxes above the annual index since Act 1’s enactment in 2006. However, even with the 2.9% tax increase, a $6 million deficit remains in the budget.

The School Board is allowed to increase taxes above the annual index based on specific allowable exceptions. The District’s analysis confirmed the eligibility for exceptions in (1) state mandated retirement rate increase, (2) special education and (3) maintenance of selected revenues. If these options are applied for and approved by the State, the School Board would have an option of raising taxes up to an additional 4.3% – combined with the allowable Act 1 increase of 2.9%, taxpayers could be looking at an increase of 7.2%! We understand that the current economic situation presents a real struggle for the School Board and the administration, but how to balance the budget? How do you want the School Board to balance the budget? Do they greatly increase taxes, reduce services, eliminate programs (such as FLES), increase existing fees, charge for extra-curriculum programs?

Tonight’s discussion at the School Board meeting should be very interesting — 7:30 PM at Conestoga HS. Come out and let your voice be heard! Here is a link to the agenda, October meeting minutes, correspondence and financials.

Tredyffrin Easttown School District's FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School) – Budget Cut?

November 23, 2009
Comments

There is a T/E School Board meeting tonight at 7:30 PM. One of the major discussions tonight will be the possible elimination of the FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School) program. Many T/E parents strongly support the continuance of foreign language learning at the elementary school level. They believe that the T/E middle school foreign language program is accelerated compared to other school districts as a result of FLES. An online petition opposing the elimination of FLES has had 571 signatures since November 12 – click here for the petition. Will the supporters of FLES prevail? Stay tuned.

I’m hearing that our proposed school tax increase may be as high as 7.2%. Let’s hope that this isn’t so — let me do some further checking.

Families Helping Families – T & E Cares

November 22, 2009
Comments

Thanksgiving is a few days away . . . and then the calendar will be closing in on Hanukkuh and Christmas. We have much to be thankful for in 2009 so let’s spread the goodwill and cheer throughout the community. If you want to help and give back locally, I suggest a visit to the website of a local nonprofit 501c3 organization, T & E Care for ways that you can help with their Holiday Drive 2009. The organization has identified 40 local families that need our help this holiday season with food, presents and gift cards. The website lists many ways that you can help your neighbors – and remember help is needed year-round, not just during the holidays.

I am proud to look at the T & E Care Board of Directors and know many of these people are my friends; they represent some of the ‘best of the best’ of this community. T & E Care believes in our community and believes in families helping families.

Celebrate these holidays by doing something for yourself . . . by doing something for others!

Thank you to Save Ardmore Coalition

November 21, 2009
1 Comment

Save Ardmore Coalition, “working together for Lower Merion’s future” is a grassroots community organization that is dedicated to the revitalization of downtown Ardmore business district. However, many of the blog contributors including Carla, are interested in communities beyond their own backyard, including Tredyffrin Township. Carla has been following Mt. Pleasant’s neighborhood struggles and recently conducted a field trip to Mt. Pleasant to document the community. Her posting titled Visiting Mt. Pleasant: Another Small Neighborhood at Risk tells it all. Carla’s Mt. Pleasant photos.

I am excited that the Save Ardmore Coalition has announced my Community Matters in Tredyffrin Township blog to their audience; click here for the announcement. Communities helping communities is how we are going to make a difference! Thank you Save Ardmore Coalition for doing your part!

Local Nonprofit Organization has Apartment For Rent in Historic Revolutionary General's House

November 21, 2009
Comments

General DuPortail House

Do you know someone who would enjoy the unique experience of living in a Revolutionary War General’s headquarters? I serve on the Board of Directors for historic DuPortail House in Chesterbrook and the home’s 2-BR apartment is now available for rent. I’m sure that most people don’t realize that there is a rental apartment, located on the 2nd floor of the 270-yr. old stone farmhouse. The DuPortail House property also contains a rental cottage on the grounds (the cottage is currently leased). Up until a few weeks ago, the house apartment was rented by a lovely young professional but unfortunately Rachel’s company went through an acquistion, she lost her job and was forced in to moving to her parents home.

The DuPortail House board is now trying to find a new tenant; below is the Craigslist posting for this wonderful historic apartment. For information or to see the apartment, please contact me at pattye@greatvalleyhouse.com .

Apartment has two bedrooms, one bath, kitchen and living room on second floor of historic DuPortail House in Tredyffrin Township, Chester County. Includes a room A/C and washer and dryer in basement. Rent is $1100 per month, including untilities. Close to shopping and Route 202. Located in lovely park setting in Chesterbrook. Quiet small pet permitted with additional security deposit.

DuPortail House and the Federal Barn in Chesterbrook are both on the National Register of Historic Places. DuPortail House is available to rent for weddings, receptions, corporate meetings, etc. There are ongoing maintenance costs in the preservation of this historic landmark property and our nonprofit board struggles to meet these financial demands. The rental of the house, the cottage and the apartment are required just to meet the monthly costs of the house and grounds. We can not afford to have the apartment vacant – please, if you know someone who may be interested, I ask you to pass the information along. If you want details of renting the house for a meeting or special event, contact Event Cordinator Kate Frey, 610.644.4840 or visit the website.

Mt. Pleasant Update

November 20, 2009
Comments

Some updates to report on Mt. Pleasant:

Recently, there was a meeting with some of the Mt. Pleasant residents, the township police and Supervisors Judy DiFilippo and John DiBuonaventuro to discuss concerns and ongoing issues in this neighborhood. A town hall type meeting is currently in the works which will include Mt. Pleasant residents and landlords, in addition to township representatives. Providing an open forum for the participants to air their differences will encourage a path for peaceful solutions. This is good news. I salute those involved in the process and look forward to hearing about the scheduled date for this town hall meeting.

At this time, Tredyffrin Township does not have a specific ordinance that address student housing in the township. I was told that the township is looking at neighboring municipalities ordinances for student rental properties with the intention of creating our own ordinance. With the township budget cuts, are we going to have money to pay for a new ordinance? I did some checking on my own — Radnor Township has specific ordinances and guidelines concerning student renters. In their ordinance, Radnor has established oversight and enforcement policy for landlords and students. It would be interesting to know if Radnor has seen a difference in policing requirements as a result of stricter penalities for landlord/student offenses. Following up and enforcing rental housing is challenging in Tredyffrin. Tredyffin’s Zoning Officer, Emmy Baldassarre (Tel: 610-408-3614) is doing a good job with follow-up when specific situations are brought to her attention. Understand that she can only do this job if she is provided with specific details of offenses. Emmy is very approachable and I would encourage the public to contact her with zoning questions.

I received an update from last night’s Planning Commission Meeting. An applicant for a property on Upper Gulph/Mt. Pleasant area presented a subdivision plan to convert a single family home in to a twin. The plan included an addition which would greatly expand the footprint of the properties. A number of Mt. Pleasant residents attended and after thorough discussion, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously, 7-0 to not recommend the proposed subdivision plan to the Zoning Hearing Board. The plan now moves to the Zoning Hearing Board and we will wait to see what happens.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme