Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

Should School Districts (TESD) Use Fund Balances Instead of Educational Cuts and Teacher Demotions?

May 22, 2012
39 Comments

Should school districts, such as TESD use fund balances instead of educational cuts and teacher demotions? The answer according to Governor Corbett and some other Pennsylvania lawmakers, is yes.

Tredyffrin Easttown School District has amassed an enviable fund balance – $32 million; one of the largest in the state. There are those in the community that support the school board holding on to the “rainy day” reserve funds; primarily because of the dramatically increasing PSERS contributions over the next few years. We understand that the traditional package of retirement benefits for state employees and teachers has become unaffordable and pension reform is sorely needed (and sooner rather than later). I support the state switching to a defined-contribution model (401(k) type model) for new hires but that only prevents the underfunded-pension liability problem from worsening … the state has a current multi-billion dollar hole. But unlike T/E, the state has no “rainy day” fund. Trying to manage their budgets, the state’s pension crisis has pushed school districts across the state to the edge of the cliff. There are those that praise T/E for the good job they have done in holding onto their fund balance in spite of the pension crisis.

But not everyone in our school district supports T/E holding onto the $30+ million fund balance; suggesting that this money represents past overtaxing and belongs to the taxpayers and should be returned. Then there is the teacher union’s position that the fund balance should be used before utilizing budget strategies such as demotion or increasing class size. Some residents fear that as school district’s budget woes push them over the cliff, the state will look to Districts (such as T/E) to bail out their fellow school districts.

Governor Corbett has sent a message to Pennsylvania’s school districts; he believes that they should tap into their reserves instead of cutting programs or laying off teachers and staff. During a recent radio interview with Dom Giordana on CBS channel WPHT, Corbett said if school boards want to cut programs instead of spending more of their financial reserves, than the public should blame them – not his budget. According to Corbett, “Well, I look at the reserves as – it’s a rainy day fund. And this is a rainy day – we are in a rainy day.” If you are a supporter of our governor, then the message to T/E school board would be no educational cuts, spend the fund balance.

Taking Gov. Corbett’s message for school district’s to use their fund balances, a step further are State Rep. Mike Vereb (R-Montgomery County) and Mario Scavello (R-Monroe County). These two Republican lawmakers are developing legislation that would force school districts to use their reserve funds to balance their budget before they would be allowed to raise taxes. Vereb and Scavello want to either limit the amount of money that districts can hold in their “rainy day” reserves or ban the school districts from raising taxes if the money needed to balance the budget is available (in the fund balance).

In an article on Watchdog.org , “Pennsylvania School Districts have Tripled Savings in 15 Years”, it was stated that Pennsylvania school districts have more than $3.2 billion in reserve funds. Data from the PA Department of Education indicates that the reserve accounts have nearly tripled from $1.1 billion in 1996-97 to more than $3.2 billion last year.

The article included an interesting table listing the largest reserve fund increases in Pennsylvania since 1996-97; Tredyffrin Easttown School District has the distinction of coming in 7th in the state. In 1996-97, T/E had $4,333,661 and in fifteen years increased by more than $26 million to a current total of approximately $32 million. Amazing.

Largest Reserve Fund Increases Since 1996-97
Rank District 1996-97 2010-11 Increase
  1 Pittsburgh $47,013,209 $148,871,185 $101,857,976
  2 Downingtown $183,005 $50,803,447 $50,620,442
  3 Abington $1,509,021 $45,937,675 $44,428,654
  4 Lower Merion $6,584,556 $43,405,136 $36,820,580
  5 Altoona $1,509,021 $45,937,675 $44,428,654
  6 Bensalem $1,674,721 $28,564,360 $26,889,639
  7 Tredyffrin-Easttown $4,333,551 $31,026,455 $26,692,904

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vereb is “furious to find that many of the state’s school districts that are crying poor and blaming the state for their fiscal problems are sitting on surpluses, including one that totals $148 million.” Although Vereb supports school districts having an emergency reserve, he feels that the taxpayer is deserved an explanation as to why school districts with large fund balances are cutting programs and teachers and raising property taxes but refusing to use fund balances. That’s the reasoning behind the legislation that he and Scavello are working on — forcing the hand of school boards to use their fund balances before raising taxes.

T/E Teachers Union Turns on the Transparency Lights in Contract Negotiations

May 17, 2012
125 Comments

The teachers union in T/E school district, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA), provided an update on the negotiation process late last night. The basis for the union’s email was to deliver what the community members have been asking for from TEEA and the school board — transparency.

This latest press release from TEEA is comprehensive … and offers us ‘personal and up close’ information from the union’s perspective on the contract negotiation process. (Something that many of us have asked for, but told was not possible during the ongoing contract negotiations). With this latest communication, TEEA is laying the gauntlet down, providing us with documents that range from copies of their initial contract proposal, the District’s response to an explanation of the grievances.

On April 25, I wrote a post titled, ‘Seeking Transparency in TESD Teacher Contract Negotiations’ in which I called for transparency in the negotiations, suggesting that both sides ‘open the door’ and let the sunlight shine in. Because of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, even the discussion on Community Matters has turned to conjecture; a world of ‘he said, she said’, which is never good. Some will suggest that this latest attempt on the part of TEEA to be more transparent and inform the public is nothing more than a ‘tactic’ to win favorable support from the parents, students and taxpayers. I will respectfully disagree.

Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of the teacher’s proposal, clearly TEEA now sees the merits of the community hearing the facts. To date, misinformation was perpetuated and the line between fact and fiction blurred, with the public left to fill in the gaps between the partial or half-truths from either side. The teachers’ contract accounts for a significant part of the District’s budget and strongly influences the financial ‘bottom line’.

To read TEEA’s latest press release, ‘T/E Teachers, Counselors, and Nurses Offer Opinion on the Negotiation Process’, click here.

Click here to read the teacher’s union initial proposal dated January 9, which TEEA believed to be a starting point for discussion. Their offer contained a one-year salary freeze for all teachers, second year freeze for those at master level. According to the union, they also ‘made repeated verbal commitments to discuss changes to healthcare benefits’.

The School Board rejected the teacher’s initial proposal on February 9. Click here to read the District’s 113-page counter-offer to TEEA. According to TEEA, this is the only offer to date made by the Board. If you recall, several teachers had commented on Community Matters regarding the District’s offer, claiming that family health coverage was not included in the District’s offer. Many readers questioned whether the elimination of family health coverage was in the counter-proposal; suggesting that unless the public saw it ‘in writing’, the information may not be accurate.

We can now read the District’s counter-proposal and it appears clear to me that option for teachers to insure their spouses and/or children is indeed eliminated, as is dental and vision coverage. I do not see how it can be interpreted differently – there appears this offer has no option for teachers to have family health insurance coverage through their employment in TESD. In addition, to be clear, the District’s counter-proposal includes no option for the teachers ‘to buy’ health insurance for their families.

In their latest press release, TEEA goes on to detail other areas the District counter-proposal seeks to eliminate or reduce, some of which could be viewed as reasonable given the economic climate and the severity of the budget situation – example, reducing the teacher’s stipend rates on mentor programs and homebound instruction. The District in their counter-offer seeks to freeze teacher salaries indefinitely – given the economics, although not satisfactory, the school board probably feels they have little option.

TEEA revised their initial proposal (click here) and presented it to the District on February 29. The District responded that they were unwilling to discuss the health care benefits. According to TEEA, it was shortly afterward that the ‘demotions of professional staff for economic reasons’ became a viable budget strategy option. As a result, the public has watched the circus-like atmosphere that now ensues at school board and finance committee meetings which has included students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. Additionally, the last couple of meetings have included the District releasing information that TEEA has filed two grievances, leaving some of us with questions. The union addresses the grievance issue in a FAQ, click here to read.

As I have repeatedly stated in other posts, making the teacher contract negotiation process transparent for the public would help the community understand how our children will be taught and how our tax dollars will be invested. The relationship between teachers and school administrators is an important element in what shapes this school district. There is no better way to understand this relationship than to observe the contract negotiation process. However, based on the way this process has worked to date, to suggest that the current relationship between the teachers, administrators and school board is ‘strained’ would be quite an understatement!

With the release of this information from the teachers union, I believe that TEEA is attempting to shine light and bring transparency to the contract negotiation process. However, for the transparency process to be successful, requires open dialogue from both sides.

Is it possible that the District and TEEA can put the needs of the students and families first and at the same time, honor the public investment of taxpayers? Can both sides be more open about the negotiation process – talk truths to each other and to the public?

Fund Balance Transfer, Another TEEA Grievance & Demotion Remains an Option in T/E!

May 15, 2012
65 Comments

I attended last night’s marathon Board of Supervisors meeting and public hearing continuation on the Trout Creek Overlay district. For the first 20 minutes, Keene Hall was overflowing with a standing room only crowd to witness the swearing-in of Tredyffrin’s new Superintendent of Police Tony Giaimo. Family, friends, co-workers and elected officials from the community and beyond, enthusiastically supported the appointment. I also add my ‘Congratulations Tony’!

Three-fourths of the audience left following the ceremony and then it was back to ‘business as usual.’ Comments from the Trout Creek Overlay working group, a developer update and discussion from supervisors and residents took the public hearing to 11 PM. I’ll offer my remarks in another post. The T/E School Board meeting was held at the same time as the supervisors meeting and Ray Clarke kindly provided his notes on that meeting.

As I understand it, the teachers union, TEEA has filed two grievances against the District. At the last District finance meeting, we were told of the one filing ($1 million expense), which pertained to the additional high school teaching period not covered in their contract. Since September, the teachers have had 6 teaching periods rather than 5 periods. However, the community learned last night that those teachers affected by the additional teaching period are seeking a one-time payment of $2.2 million, as compensation for this extra period of work.

Although the school board unanimously approved using some of the District’s fund balance for 2012-13 budget gap, the three budget strategies remain under consideration – (1) soliciting tax exempt property owners in lieu of taxes, (2) increasing class size and (3) demotion of professional staff for economic reasons.

Here are Ray’s notes from last night’s school board meeting:

There were two you-better-be-paying-attention moments in tonight’s drawn-out meeting, marked otherwise by earnest students delving at length into school funding and opportunities for tax increases and donations, restrained only by the Solicitor waving placards announcing that their time was up.

First, in a discussion about risks to the “Proposed Final Budget”, we were reminded about the $1.4 million of revenue risk from commercial appeals and the $1 million of expense risk from the union appeal of having to teach 6 periods. Then the solicitor was asked to report on another grievance just filed by the TEEA. As last time, much incoherent mumbling, but it appears that the new grievance covers the same issue as the first one, but it goes back to the current year, adds some kind of multiplier and that’s worth another $2.2 million.

Fast forward to the very end of the meeting, Karen Cruickshank reads a statement about the negotiations that essentially says:

  • It’s a new world
  • The district has nothing for salary, wages and benefits (SW&B) increases
  • All other employee groups have made concessions or had salaries frozen
  • The Board does not like asking people to work more for less, but that’s reality for many taxpayers
  • The next steps would be to revisit demotions and then all non-mandated programs
  • “Everyone has to give up something”, and if so, there can be a solution
  • In response to resident questions: a) Both sides are represented by professional negotiators because the stakes are high, and b) if the Board talked directly to teachers they would open themselves up to potential Unfair Labor Practice charges
  • The next negotiation session is on June 7th

You would think that the Board position would be straightforward: here’s how much money we have (assume tax increases of index plus exceptions; at some point PSERS and maybe even Special Ed increases will begin to tail off), work with us to figure out how it should be allocated. The Projection Model for combined SW&B would be pretty much the line in the sand, you would think.

It appears as though the TEEA strategy is set up an extreme position for possible arbitration, and to seize as much as possible from the fund balance while it’s there, and keep the pressure on the citizenry to support new funding sources (sales or income taxes, or some change in the Act 1 index?). The $1 million from the original grievance would be an ongoing expense, but – if I understood it right – the $2.2 million would be one time.

The budget with the $1.55 million fund balance contribution was approved 9-0, but it’s clearly not final. They still have not updated the compensation costs for the retirements/replacements, which will bring a material saving. And the class size and demotion issues are still on the table. The next Finance Committee on June 11th (still at the TEAO) will hopefully bring us some decisions and accurate numbers. (But not likely a negotiations breakthrough from June 7th – what are the negotiators doing for the next three weeks, anyway?)

If anyone wants to weigh in on the donations issue, it will be discussed at the Policy Committee on May 23rd at 6:30pm in the TEAO. The June 14th Board meeting for Final Budget adoption will be in the CHS cafeteria.

Jimmy Duffy Redevelopment Project … Does the End Justify the Means?

May 15, 2012
17 Comments

This is a follow-up to an earlier post, Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?

Last week’s town hall meeting included an update on the redevelopment project from developer Ed Morris, who was accompanied by Capital Health Group, LLC representative Gerard Farrell and their attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco. In addition to members of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) was Mimi Gleason, township manager and Matt Bauman, township zoning officer, 3 supervisors (JD DiBuonaventuro, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock) and 3 Planning Commissioners (Bob O’Leary, Tory Synder and Trip Lukens).

Perhaps the intentions of the meeting were good but overall, I found the meeting less than satisfactory as an audience member. Having attended the 2 planning commission meetings (September, October 2011), 2012 January Board of Supervisors meeting and developer-DNA public meeting this past February (where this project was discussed), I expected that this latest meeting would give local residents an opportunity to really be ‘heard’ by those representing our government, in addition to an update from the developer. I did not leave the meeting feel that mission was accomplished.

The discussion surrounding the Jimmy Duffy project is confusing … on one hand, there has been no formal land development plan presented to the township by Capital Health. (Currently, the C-1 and R-1 zoning of the Duffy property does not allow for an assisted living facility.) Yet, on the other hand, based on the number of meetings and input from planning commissioners, supervisors and township staff, suggests that this project has advanced beyond a vague, casual stage.

Eagle Bank owns the Jimmy Duffy property and with the current economic climate, I’m guessing may be willing to sell it for a significantly reduced price. However, a developer probably would not want to purchase the property unless there was a degree of assurance that the deal would go through so … he/she would be looking for ‘buy-in’ to the project from the community and the local government; hence the visits to and discussions with, the planning commissioners.

However, here’s the ‘dicey’ part for me and what I do not understand. Although Ed Morris has made concessions in his latest draft drawings of his project (one less floor, more trees, etc) he still has the problem that the current zoning does not permit this usage of the property. Current zoning only permits assisted living in the Industrial Overlay district and that has a 10 acre minimum requirement. As I understand township zoning, an applicant would need to take his land development plan to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance to build the project on the 2-acre Duffy site. But rather than taking the variance route, the discussion has evolved to Ed Morris writing an amendment to the current C-1 zoning ordinance to include assisted living as an acceptable use. Although I have been told that it is a normal, and acceptable practice, for a developer to draft zoning ordinance language, it certainly appears odd and rather self-serving to me. But I certainly do not claim to be a zoning or planning expert!

Former township supervisor and Zoning Hearing Board member John Petersen weighs in with his opinion on the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project. He has submitted the following op-ed article, ‘Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy Catering site is a bad idea’ to Main Line Media News for publication:

Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy’s Catering site is a bad idea

This critique has nothing to do with the project’s underlying merits. It may very well be that an assisted living use may be a good idea on the 2 acre site in spite of the fact that such a use is currently only permitted on a 10+ acre parcels. Rather, this critique has to do with the process and procedure surrounding the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Planning Commission’s (PC) apparently affinity to abandon established process and procedures in favor of fast-tracking said project on said site. To fast track the development, the BOS and PC are considering the drastic step of adding assisted living as an approved use in the C1 zoning district. There are 3 basic and simple reasons why the BOS and PC are yet again, showing an astonishing lack of judgment.

1. The project developer, already has a remedy that has not been exhausted
The developer has not applied for a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). A zoning variance allows for a use or condition that exists outside the current zoning regulations. If the ZHB were to grant a variance, a wholesale change to zoning would not be required. The benefit is that the change applies only the specific parcel and can be tailored to only apply to current owner. When asked about a variance, developer’s counsel replied “That would take too long.” I used to sit on the BOS and the ZHB and I don’t recall “Taking too long” as being a bona-fide reason to abandon procedure. It’s also been reported that the township’s zoning officer kept “deferring” to applicant’s counsel. That is highly irregular. In effect, applicant’s counsel is dictating and driving procedure, and in this case, changing it for the benefit of the developer. It is certainly to the developer’s benefit to have the zoning changed since that would obviate the need to seek a variance. As one supervisor pointed out at the town hall meeting “It’s not the BOS’s job to seek out projects.” Yet, that is exactly what is happening here. At the very least, this project sought out this BOS and PC. Regardless of how they found each other, the BOS and PC seem ready, willing and able to give this specific developer, this specific project and this specific parcel of land special treatment. This sets a dangerous precedent.

2. The BOS just committed to spend $100K on a review of its ZO
Some would point out that grant money makes the net cost only $30K. However, those grants are not guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is the $100K consulting appropriation. Only when and if the revised zoning, based on the consultant’s recommendations are approved, do the grants have the potential to be realized. Once the BOS committed to having the ZO reviewed, a moratorium on zoning changes should have been established. What if this contemplated new use in C1 is deemed to be a less than optimal use? It appears foolish to tweak something that is about to undergo a comprehensive and expensive review.

3. The process and procedure (or lack thereof) sets a precedent for future developers and projects
The BOS and PC might as well put a large for sale sign on the township. Consider the next developer who seeks to develop a C1 parcel or perhaps a residential or industrial parcel with a use that is not contemplated under the ZO. What are the BOS and PC going to say then? No? That developer may have a very good case to take to court. Zoning must be non-prejudicial. It must be a-political. Zoning represents 50-100 year decisions. These are long term in nature. The costs of making wrong decisions are high. We are already dealing with storm water problems in the township that are due, in part, to bad planning. Good planning begins with a vision that is independent of any specific project. The goal is to have consistent and compatible uses that meet the divergent needs of residents and businesses (retail, commercial and sometimes industrial). You don’t begin with specific projects and let the model shake out from there. We have a zoning map that will now undergo review based on the results of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Process. At the same time, a new use will be added to C1. And very likely, there will be another parcel in the township that this developer or another developer will seek to develop for another non-permitted use? Based on this precedent, the BOS will be obliged to say yes because the BOS cannot and has not offered a single articulable rational basis for this decision. And let’s not forget that there are no plans in front of the PC. How can this possibly be contemplated now? How is this not favoritism – the problem encountered with spot-zoning?

Conclusion
The 3 aforementioned reasons make it clear that the contemplated actions of the BOS and PC are not in the best interest of this community because the actions represent a departure from established procedures. The actions do not represent what could be considered best-practices insofar as zoning and land use procedure is concerned. Any developer should first submit plans to the PC and where necessary, seek a variance. As a record proceeding, citizens have an opportunity to be present and heard. If that variance is granted, the citizens at least have legal recourse to have such a decision reviewed by the Court. If the variance is denied, then the developer can then seek to have the use added. In that event, the BOS and PC have the benefit of the ZHB proceedings to make a better, more informed decision.

In a civilized society, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means – especially in the case when there are the means to do things the right way – within the framework of existing policies and procedures.

John V. Petersen
Paoli, PA

$1.5 Million Budget Deficit … Will T/E Use Fund Balance in Lieu of Demotion or Increasing Class Size?

May 14, 2012
Comments

Click here to see the draft on the 2012-13 final budget of TESD to be presented at tonight’s school board meeting – 7:30 PM, TESD administration office, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Click here for the agenda. Thanks to Community Matters reader Roberta Hotinski for providing the updated information and link from the District.

The draft budget reflects a proposed tax increase of 3.3% … 1.7% from Act 1 Index ($1.5 million) and 1.6% from Act 1 Exceptions ($1,498,916). Based on an average residential assessment of $252,601, the average tax increase proposed by the budget is $155 to the taxpayer.

Applying the previously accepted strategies, the District’s budget deficit for 2012-13 is $1,547,888. Now here is the curious part … you will note on page 3 of the proposed final budget (see below) that next to the $1.5 million+ deficit are the words “Satisfied with Fund Balance Contribution”. At both the last school board meeting and the finance committee meeting, when various residents asked school board members about using some of the $32 million fund balance for the budget shortfall, that option was quickly dismissed (with little discussion). School board members were unwilling to discuss using the fund balance to bridge the budget gap but rather focused attention on the remaining strategies of (1) soliciting tax exempt property owners in lieu of taxes, (2) increasing class size and (3) demotion of professional staff for economic reasons.

For the record, page 7 of the proposed final budget continues to list strategies, N-14, Solicit Tax Exempt Property Owners in Lieu of Taxes, N-16, Demotion/Attrition of Professional Staff for Economic Reasons – $640,328 and N-19, Increase Class Size by One at Each Level – $607,500. However, based on the proposed fund balance transfer listed on page 3 of the budget, it would appear that the school board might have changed their mind in regards to demotion and increased class size as budget strategies.

If I am interpreting the District budget proposal correctly in regards to the fund transfer, this could be good news for those supporting the District teachers most in risk of demotion. Additionally, maybe this new information will begin to move the teacher contract negotiations forward towards a peaceful resolution. Here’s hoping!

 

US News Ranks Conestoga High School #3 in Pennsylvania, #279 Nationwide!

May 10, 2012
4 Comments

Between the final tweaking of the District budget for 2012-13 and the continuing teacher contract negotiations, it is timely that the US News & World Report releases its list of the best high schools in America. The publication reviewed test data from 22,000 public high schools and 500 schools received the highest ‘gold’ level award. Conestoga High School received gold level standing, listing at a distinctive rank of 279 of all public high schools in the country. The US News results indicate an impressive #3 ranking for Conestoga for all public schools in Pennsylvania.

There are 579 school districts in Pennsylvania and 752 high schools. As part of the state’s graduation requirement, PA high school students take assessments in reading, writing, math, and science in the 11th grade. US News Report uses the Pennsylvania Systems of School Assessment (PSSA) is used in the criteria for ranking the high schools. Conestoga scored 54.3 on the college readiness index, based on AP (Advanced Placement) participation rate. The AP participation rate at Conestoga is 56%.

In 11th grade, Pennsylvania school students take Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests in reading, writing, math and science. Here’s the breakdown on the reading and math proficiency results for Conestoga High School students:

PSSA Reading Proficiency results:
Total Students Tested 491
Below Basic: 2%
Basic: 5%
Proficient: 23%
Advanced: 70%
Results indicate 92% proficiency rate in reading.

PSSA Math Proficiency results:
Total Students Tested 478
Below Basic: 3%
Basic: 4%
Proficient: 20%
Advanced: 73%
Results indicate 93% proficiency rate in math.

Here the list of the top 10 high schools in Pennsylvania:

#1 Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia
#2 Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, Erie
#3 Conestoga High School, Berwyn
#4 Unionville High School, Kennett Square
#5 Wyomissing Area Jr-Sr High School, Wyomissing
#6 Radnor High School, Radnor
#7 New Hope-Solebury High School, New Hope
#8 Mt. Lebanon High School, Pittsburgh
#9 Upper St. Clair High School, Pittsburgh
#10 Central High School, Philadelphia

Interesting to note that 2 of the top 10 public high schools in the state are located in Philadelphia!

Locally, how did our neighboring high schools rank. Radnor High School made the top ten list in Pennsylvania at #6 and achieved a national rank of 432, qualify for gold level. Lower Merion High School received silver level nationwide, coming in at 835 and ranked #16 in the state. Great Valley High School was listed at the silver level nationwide, at 725 and #12 in the state. Phoenixville High School, another silver level, ranked 1,094 nationwide and #25 in Pennsylvania.

Congratulations to Conestoga students, parents and teachers on this achievement!

Teachers Union Files Grievance against T/E over Additional Teaching Period

May 8, 2012
121 Comments

Have you ever attended a meeting where you left shaking your head in confusion and wondering exactly what was decided? Last night’s Finance Committee meeting of the school district was that kind of meeting for me. I would think it was just me, except that following up with Ray Clarke, who also attended the meeting; I took solace that some of what was said too confused him.

Unfortunately, if Ray and I were a tad confused, I fear that the standing-room only crowd in attendance may be likewise. Here are some of the highlights; if you attended the meeting, and find that, I misunderstood the information, please jump in.

The remaining 2012-13 budget deficit is $1.5 million. There are 3 budget strategies under review to bridge the gap:

  1. Strategy N-14: Solicitation of tax-exempt property owners for payment in lieu of taxes. A letter from the District would go to these property owners requesting a payment in lieu of taxes equal to 10% of the total amount if their property was not tax-exempt. The District will do the research and insert the actual dollar amount of what they would pay (if not tax-exempt) along with the requested 10 percent amount. There is a potential of $5 million from the 308 tax-exempt property owners. This is a 2-prong approach – the District will be quantifying to see if any property owners have lost their non-profit status and there should be paying taxes, and to ask for donations from non-profit property owners. Interesting to note that 2 of the largest non-profit property owners are Tredyffrin Township and Tredyffrin Easttown School District.
  2. Strategy N-19: Increase class size by one student. Grades K & 1 would go from 22 to 23 students, Grade 2 from 23 to 24 students, Grades 3 & 4 from 25 to 26 students and Grades 5 & 6 from 27 to 28 students. Estimated savings: $607K
  3. Strategy N-16: Demotion of professional staff for economic reasons. Estimated savings: $640K TESD solicitor Kenneth Roos attended the Finance Committee meeting and gave his legalize during the meeting, as needed. He explained that the District could not demote on merit because it is subjective. Demotion cannot be “arbitrary or capricious”. Dr. Waters offered that by demoting those with the highest salaries, the impact would be lessened with fewer teachers affected. The solicitor confirmed that the TEEA contract is silent on the subject of demotion.

Last year, budget strategies numbered 31-35 combined are listed as a cost savings of $1.125 million — these strategies were ultimately approved in the 2011-12 budget. Strategy 31 requires high school teachers to teach 6 periods per day, Strategy 32 maintains the 8 periods per day at Conestoga and limit students to 42 periods per cycle. Strategy 33 requires science lab teachers at Conestoga to teach 5 classes, Strategy 34 eliminates German and Latin in the middle school and final Strategy 35 curtails applied tech, FC and Tech Ed in Grades 5 and 6.

Because of increased teaching periods that started this school year, an announcement by school board member Betsy Fadem last night that was surprising. It is my understanding from Fadem and the solicitor that the teachers union has filed a grievance against the District in regards to the additional teaching period in the high school — Conestoga teachers are teaching 6 periods per day versus 5 periods.

The TEEA grievance topic was the number one most confusing, and least explained item of last night. Between Ray Clarke and me, we have tried to figure out what was said but there was little to go on. There is a potential $1 million price tag associated with this grievance, should the District lose. There is an additional problem (which could be costly in time and money) that’s the rescheduling required if TEEA prevails and the number of teaching periods returns to where it was before this budget strategy was imposed.

The statement from Roos on TEEA grievance was confusing. I absolutely do not understand the scope of the grievance, the timeline for appeal, associated costs, etc.; the public is owed a much more comprehensive explanation than was offered last night. We all left the meeting shaking our heads and not understanding this grievance issue. I couldn’t help but wonder is this a ‘balance of the scales’ contract strategy from TEEA against the ‘demotion talk’ from the school district? Please school board, can the taxpayers have transparency and explanation on this important issue. If there are any teachers who can shed light on the complaint, please help us understand.

The only other item I will mention from last night had to do with creating a way for residents to donate to the school district to help the budget. Many residents have spoken out that they would like to contribute with donations to the District, some suggesting that they were willing to see their taxes increased to ensure the quality of the T/E education. There was discussion about having a ‘button’ on the District’s website for contributions and setting up a foundation to collect donations (as a Great Valley organization recently did). In addition, FLITE is willing to have contributions go through their organization that would be earmarked for the District. A number of students and parents spoke out in support of voluntary contributions to the District.

Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?

May 7, 2012
20 Comments

UPDATE May 8, 2012: According to the township zoning officer, Matt Bauman, the Jimmy Duffy property is not 2 acres C-1 Commercial and .3 acres R-1 Residential as was stated by Ed Morris, the developer for the proposed project.

The property is a total of 2.069 acres containing 1.069 acres of C-1 Commercial and 1 acre of R-1 Residential. If the commercially zoned part of the site was 2 acres as previously stated, the developer could probably just ask to change the C-1 zoning. But now it appears that Morris would need to ask for variance on both the C-1 and R-1 sections.

Taking the ‘amending the C-1 Commercial ordinance route’ to include assisted care facility would suggest that it is OK to construct this type of structure on 1 acre rather than the 10 acre minimum as is currently required under IO Institutional Overlay zoning district. The Jimmy Duffy property actually only contains 10% of the property currently required for an assisted care facility.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

It has been 2-1/2 months since the players in the Jimmy Duffy’s redevelopment project last met publicly … but this Wednesday, May 9, 7 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building, they will take up where they left off with a town hall meeting. What’s changed with the proposed plans for a multi-story assisted care facility? I don’t know if any of the plans have changed from the developers-side; it’s more about the fact-finding that has occurred with the Daylesford neighbors. I will get to that, but first here is the abbreviated history on the project.

The decaying catering facility that once housed Jimmy Duffy’s is on Lancaster Avenue in Daylesford. The 2.3-acre property is wedged between the Paoli Vetcare (the 2 properties share a parking lot) and a large new office building. On and off over the years, the property has seen its share of redevelopment interest but most notably the 2006 proposed Arc Wheeler townhouse community. That proposal, ‘Station Square’, called for the teardown of 14 single-family homes (in addition to Duffy’s) and the construction of 150+ residential units and retail space. With much backlash from the neighboring Daylesford homeowners and many heated discussions, the developer eventually decided against further pursuit of that project.

Several years passed without any new suggestions for the Duffy site until last fall. In September 2011, Capital Health Service and the project’s developer Ed Morris, presented sketch plans to Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission to redevelop the property as a multi-story assisted living facility. Planning Commission minutes from September and October 2011, and January 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes reference the discussion. Here’s the sticky wicket for Capital Health and Ed Morris – the 2.3 acre Duffy property consists of 2 acres of C-1 zoning and .3 ac of R-1 zoning. The C-1 Commercial District does not permit an assisted care facility as a usage; nor does R-1 Residential District.

The township does have zoning that permits residential care facilities – Institutional Overlay (IO) but the proposed Jimmy Duffy project would not comply with this ordinance – why? The answer: An IO zoning district requires a minimum of 10 acres and the Jimmy Duffy site has 2 acres. The applicant for the project could ask for a variance to the IO zoning, but 2 acres is not exactly close to minimum 10-acre requirement. Under these conditions, would the township Zoning Hearing Board grant this type of variance request? My guess is that Capital Health Service and Ed Morris figured that their best shot at getting this project approved was to have the C-1 zoning district amended to include an assisted care facility as an acceptable use.

According to the January 2012 Board of Supervisors minutes, “The developer [Ed Morris] is drafting the language as qualified by the Planning Commission for the proposed amendment to the C1 zoning district that is under consideration by the Planning Commission at this time.” The minutes from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings, give the impression that the Daylesford neighbors were contacted and that their response favorable to the project. This is probably why Ed Morris et al received the green light to draft language for a zoning amendment change.

What’s the saying, the devil is in the details. At the February 23 public meeting between the Daylesford Neighbors Association (DNA), Capital Health Service representatives and Ed Morris, the detail that the project’s success hinged on a zoning ordinance amendment change was not an obvious part of the discussion. The Daylesford neighbors focused their concerns on the height of the proposed building, lighting, traffic, trash, etc. but most attendees missed the greater issue – that a residential care facility was not permitted in C-1 zoning and that there was not sufficient property for IO zoning (remember, IO requires 10 acres and there’s only 2.3). I admit that like the Daylesford neighbors, I too missed (or overlooked) the significance of what this project would require … the zoning amendment change. To say that the developer’s discussion at the February 23 meeting was ‘incomplete’ would be an understatement.

Fast forward since February and DNA residents have gone on a fact-finding mission to educate themselves on local zoning ordinances, C-1 Commercial, R-1 Residential, IO Institutional Overlay districts, conditional use and variances. As a result, I think that the developer would better serve the neighbors if there were a full and fair presentation of the project at Wednesday’s meeting. Ed Morris should come prepared to explain why the township should grant a C-1 zoning amendment change to include assisted care facility when the township already has the IO ordinance that includes this usage. At 2.3 acres, the Jimmy Duffy property is off by an order of magnitude to meet the IO requirement of 10-acre minimum for this type of project.

Simply stated, the proposed Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project does not match up to the requirements of IO Institutional Overlay zoning requirements and is not currently included in C-1 use regulations.

If the township allows a developer to draft a C-1 Commercial ordinance amendment to fit his specific project, what does that say for future developers in Tredyffrin? Will they too be afforded that same opportunity? It is important for the community to encourage local economic development and redevelopment. However, if a proposed project requires a zoning ordinance amendment, I ask for careful and thorough analysis. Although Wednesday’s town hall meeting is intended for those directly involved in the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project (Daylesford neighbors, Capital Health Service representatives and the developer, Ed Morris), the ramifications of the actions taken in regards to this project are far-reaching for all future township development.

———————————————————————————————————–

Trisha Larkin, President of Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) and her neighbors are circulating a “Petition to Oppose Ed Morris Proposal for Assisted Living Facility on Duffy Site”. Click here for copy of petition. According to the petition, the neighborhood members further state that “DNA opposes any FUTURE proposals that require zoning changes” for the Jimmy Duffy property.

With $32 Million in Fund Balance, How Can TESD Consider Demotion?

May 5, 2012
54 Comments

Here’s the question for the day:

Why is it that Tredyffrin Easttown School District has the largest fund balance in the state ($32 million) and is the only school district giving serious discussion to ‘demotion of professional staff’ to fund the $1.5 million budget deficit?

There are those that suggest that the idea of demotion is not a serious consideration but simply a contract-negotiating tactic to use against the teachers union. If I understand the tactic, the school district keeps the teacher demotion idea afloat in hopes that the teachers union (TEEA) will offer reduction in health care benefits in exchange for no demotion. Looking at the calendar, here is what I do not understand — The School Board has to vote on the 2012-13 budget at the June 11th school board meeting but … the teachers’ contract does not expire until June 30th. Presumably, based on the calendar, our school board members will need to make the demotion decision prior to knowing the contents of TEEA’s contract offer.

I don’t claim to know what ‘magic’ amount our school district should have in reserve, but it would appear that with $32 million of taxpayer dollars, the District could afford to use $1.5 million to fund the budget gap. As I said in a comment on Community Matters, Haverford School District voted to use $1.3 million from their fund balance to fund next year’s budget gap – but unlike TESD, they only had $2.6 million on which to draw! Their school board decided to take 50 percent of their reserves to fund the budget shortfall. The Haverford School Board choose this approach to funding the gap versus demotion of teachers. I know, I know, some will say that TESD is being fiscally responsible by preserving the $32 million fund balance, and yes, I realize that the District’s pension obligation grows significantly in the years to come, but still … ?

Regardless of motives, is the ‘demotion talk’ from the School Board, the right direction the discussion should be going? According to the agenda for Monday’s Finance Committee, the two big ticket items that still remain as budget strategies are $640K for demotion of professional staff for economic reasons and $345K for increasing class size one at each level. My guess is that there will be a decision at this meeting whether or not to recommend these strategies to the entire School Board.

The Finance Committee agenda defines demotion as a “reassignment to a position which has less authority, prestige or salary.” (PA School Code). “Demotions are permitted by the School Code for economic necessity. Seniority provisions do not apply to demotions for economic necessity. The right to demote employees is an inherent management right and does not need to be bargained. The TEEA contract is silent on demotion.” Under ‘considerations’ of demotion, the agenda lists “retention of existing trained staff could become more challenging, and (2) “Introduces a competitive disadvantage to the recruitment and hiring process.”

This afternoon, I received the latest communication from TEEA – titled, “Demotions Will Harm T/E Students, Community; Residents Asked To Share Voice”. Although some reading Community Matters may suggest that demotion of professional staff is nothing more than a negotiating ploy on the part of the union, it certainly appears that the teachers are taking the demotion strategy seriously, stating in their latest press release “ … any minimal and short-term economic benefits produced will be offset by greater and more serious long-term costs. If the Board decides to follow through on teacher demotions, we ask—what is the true price? How will these demotions affect our students, our schools, and the T/E community?…” TEEA echoes my question in regards to other school districts, declaring that “… T/E is currently the only district in the Main Line area considering teacher demotion as a cost-effective strategy…” I have spoken with several District teachers and they are concerned and consider ‘demotion’ a serious District strategy, not just a negotiating ploy. It will be very curious to see if the Finance Committee is met with a similar audience of teachers, parents, students, taxpayers were at the last school board meeting.

For the record, I absolutely believe that members of TEEA understand that their health care benefits cannot remain at the same level and, further I think that their contract offer will be reflective of that understanding. On the topic of health care benefits, I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. The administration is not part of TEEA but I have never heard their health care benefits discussed. Do they have the same insurance plan as the teachers? And if so, will the administrators health care benefits change when presumably, the teacher’s plan changes? Anyone know the answer?

I found the following comment for Community Matters apropos to this post. Rather than see the comment, I think the commenter’s sentiments are reflective of what many in the community are feeling:

From bluedog1776:

I would rather procrastinate with using a small amount of reserve money than decimate our teaching staff.

I would rather use a small amount of reserve fund money than lay off our most experienced teachers.

I would rather use the taxpayer’s money: THE RESERVE FUND, than ask our non-profits to chip in.

I would rather use some of the reserve fund than cavalierly dismiss employees who have worked for the District for many, many years.

I would rather do what Haverford School District is doing or what our School District has done in the past, which is to use some of the Reserve Fund, some tax increases, and some employee give backs, than make a rash ridiculous decision that is really about destroying the teacher’s union than about great fiscal principles.

The same five people on this blog hash over the same tired arguments over and over again. Would love to hear from more people. But I guess they are reluctant to contribute because they just don’t have the same level of experience/knowledge/brilliance as you.

The problem with many of the postings on this blog is the groupthink that persists. It would be interesting to have a real debate with real analysis.

The District has done a heckuva job (great job Sultanik PR firm) convincing most of the public that they don’t have a nickel in the bank. If we had a real newspaper asking real questions; if we had more community members come out and ask more questions; the truth would come out.

It is an absolutely unbelievable that a District with $32 million in the bank has convinced the public that we are Chester Upland. Since when? It is demeaning to this community that the powers that be have made TE out to be broke and near bankruptcy. Since when?

The board has done a good job cutting expenses, and the teachers need to pay more for health care; but we should NOT destroy this school district because we have a few people who want to take an ideological stand on not using the fund balance.

I don’t want my property values to plummet because TE schools go down the tubes as we cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

I watched the school board meeting on TV and saw the woman at the end who revealed that it is not that the school district CAN’T use the fund balance; they have CHOSEN not to use the fund balance by passing a policy to put it in a lock box.

UNLOCK THE BOX! Stop this nonsense! Stop attacking the teachers! Work with the teachers!

I agree with Pattye. I elected YOU school board members, to represent me. DO YOUR JOB! Get to the table. Settle this contract. Stop making the teachers the enemy.

TEEA States T/E $1.5 million Deficit Will be Reduced by Teacher Retirements!

May 3, 2012
3 Comments

The teachers union in T/E School District, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) held a members meeting today. I am assuming that the press released that I just received (below) was a result of their meeting. The teachers union is coming out strong in opposition to school board using demotion of professional staff as a budget strategy for the $1.5 million budget deficit.

According to this press release, TEEA is suggesting that the 2012-13 budget deficit could be reduced by nearly $1.5 million due to the retirement of 17 teachers. According to the teachers union, these retirements were not factored into the budget. If this is true, problem solved and no need for further discussion of demotion. Surely, it cannot be that simple. Or, can it?

Looks like another showdown may be coming at Monday’s Finance Committee meeting. I have received a number of phone calls and emails from concerned residents since the School Board meeting. Many of the conversations have been in support of my call for greater transparency in the teacher contract negotiation process. Comments have continued to be posted on Community Matters suggesting that the school board is fully aware of the negotiations, etc. etc.. and that it is perfectly OK that elected school board members are not sitting at the negotiating table. Sorry, I am still standing on the fact that the taxpayer needs to be represented in the room, sitting at the table, not hearing the conversation secondhand. I want someone with ‘skin in the game’ representing me — the taxpayer. And unless someone can tell me otherwise, I do not think any of the 4 people negotiating on behalf of the school district lives in either Tredyffrin or Easttown Townships.

All four school district representatives are paid by the taxpayers – one is professional negotiator Jeff Sultanik and the other three are school district administrators — Superintendent Dan Waters, Human Resource Director Sue Tiede and Business Manager Art McDonnell. Where is the Tredyffrin or Easttown taxpayer? Again, unless some tells me differently, these four individuals are not personally affected by the outcome of next year’s budget or the contract negotiations because they do not live here. The District negotiating team (Sultanik, Waters, Tiede and McDonnell) will not be affected by the increase of property taxes or the possible diminishing quality of the TESD educational program — certainly not like the taxpayers, parents and students!

I know that I sound like a broken record, but where is ‘our voice’? I think that is why I am stuck on the transparency issue; I can’t helping thinking that the taxpayers are the ‘third wheel’. We have the teachers union and the school board appointed negotiators but the parents and the taxpayers are not represented but left with a lot of questions.

Here’s the latest TEEA press release:

T/E Teachers: Demotions Unnecessary, Destructive; Existing Resources Sufficient to Preserve Program

The T/E community recently spoke out against teacher demotions at the April 23rd School Board meeting. The central concern: should the Board use existing resources to protect our best and brightest teachers – the core of an exceptional T/E school system – or cut these dedicated educators from our program?

One truth remains clear: no parties involved have created the financial challenges affecting T/E. Rather, these challenges result from a confluence of economic and legislative factors beyond the control of our local officials, residents, and teachers.

The manner in which these challenges are resolved, however, still remain in the Board’s control.

While the School Board has recently proposed the demotion of our most successful teachers as a viable cost reduction strategy, T/E teachers believe strongly that this proposal will be extremely destructive to the T/E educational program and that more reasonable solutions exist.

The recent Board meeting and a TEEA review of District finances reveal several important factors related to demotion alternatives:

  • The Board revised downward its projected deficit to 1.5M based upon allowable Act I tax increases not included in its original assumptions, revised instructional expenditures and newly accepted budget strategies.
  • 17 retiring teachers, also excluded from the Board’s initial assumptions, will reduce the projected deficit further. TEEA estimates savings of nearly $1M from teacher retirements.
  • The Board has designated much of its substantial 31M fund balance – one of the largest in the state – to rising PSERS obligations, a major external legislative challenge causing this year’s deficit. But it has not considered the use of these funds to offset next year’s increased obligation. The projected deficit is larger as a result.
  • The Board regularly uses the general fund balance to resolve budget deficits.
  • The Board’s own internal policy is the only measure preventing the use of the $31M general fund balance as a bridge that would protect the excellence of our program. The Board regularly changes its own policies, and has the authority to use these funds. The Board is not prevented by PA School Code.

If the decision to be made is between the core of our educational program or a small fraction of the fund balance, then the decision should be clear.

The Board should table the demotion measure and, instead, fully participate in comprehensive, two-way, productive contract negotiations – one of several important paths to sustainability. Why destroy our award-winning program when the resources to protect it exist?

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme