Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

Vine Day … Open Land Conservancy Could Use Your Help on Saturday!

Has this winter left you suffering from cabin fever and a need to get outside for some fresh air? There’s a perfect opportunity this Saturday, April 14 to help the community and celebrate the end of winter!

The Open Land Conservancy of Chester County will be holding its last Vine Day of the season on Saturday at George Lorimer Preserve, 9 AM – 12 Noon. Vines will be cut back so you will need to wear appropriate gloves and protective clothing. Volunteers are asked to bring tools if they have them — prunners, saws, clippers. But not to worry, the volunteers from Open Land Conservancy will have extra tools. Open Land Conservancy invites you to give back to your community by helping with spring property maintenance.

Lorimer Preserve is 88 acres of meadows, woods, ponds, stream, and extensive trail system are managed to provide a variety of habitats for wildlife in a beautiful rural setting.

Volunteering for the Open Land Conservancy is a great way to make a difference for the lands and communities of this region while having fun and meeting new people!

Directions: head north on North Valley Road across Valley Creek, to entrance and parking lot on right. For further information on Vine Day and Open Land Conservancy, click here. Any questions, contact Ray Clarke at 610-578-0358.

American Red Cross: 2012 Chester County Heroes Breakfast Needs Your Support!

The American Red Cross is a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and provides relief to victims of disasters and helps people prevent, prepare for, and responds to emergencies. The Red Cross is not a government agency – all assistance is provided free of charge. Red Cross assistance is made possible through the generosity of people in our region who donate their time, money and blood.

Steve Shapiro, attorney and regular contributor to Community Matters, is on the Board of Directors for our local Red Cross, Chester County chapter. Each year the organization honors Chester County heroes and Steve forwarded information about the HEROES BREAKFAST EVENT to honor this year’s recipient. On April 25, Denise Graf, Captain of the Chester County Red Cross volunteer Disaster Team will be honored for the difference she makes in our community.

Denise Graf, who lives in Downingtown and works for The Vanguard Group in Malvern, joined the Red Cross in October of 2005 and became captain of the Chester County Disaster Action Team (DAT) in 2008. In addition to responding to disasters, she has created partnerships between the Red Cross and the Chester County Department of Emergency Services and the Chester County Food Bank to coordinate services during emergencies. She is also devoted to teaching members of the Chester County community about disaster preparedness and fire safety. Denise received the Red Cross Volunteer of the Year award for Chester County in 2007, the Team Captain of the Year award in 2008, and an award for health fair support in 2010.

Denise reports that 2011 was her busiest year yet as a Red Cross volunteer. “Our team had only opened maybe two or three shelters over the past six years, and we opened four in the span of one and a half weeks during Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee,” she explained. The busy year began in February when she responded to a fire that happened to be at the home of her neighbor. The family was very distraught by the loss of their home, and Denise did not see any of them until Christmas Day, when the daughter brought Denise a gift and card. “It took the better part of the year, but they are now back in their home and took the time to come down and let me know how much my assistance in their time of need meant to them,” Denise says.

The HEROES BREAKFAST EVENT recognizes and celebrates heroes in Chester County who have saved lives, committed selfless acts of courage and compassion, and exemplify the mission and qualities of the Red Cross.

2012 CHESTER COUNTY HEROES BREAKFAST

Wednesday, April 25, 2012, from 7:30 AM – 9:00 AM

The Desmond Hotel, One Liberty Blvd., Malvern, PA 19355

Click here for ticket and/or sponsor information. Remember, the American Red Cross is an entirely volunteer run organization that depends on the generosity of people who donate their time and money. Thanks Steve for sharing this information about such a valuable organization.

Abolish School Property Taxes in Pennsylvania by Increasing State Sales Tax to 7%?

Are you tired of paying school property taxes in Pennsylvania?

Would you support legislation that would abolish your school property tax bill by raising the state sales tax to 7 percent? If so, State Rep Jim Cox (R-Berks) has a solution that would replace school property tax funding with new state revenues — House Bill 1776, Property Tax Independence Act.

The proposed Property Tax Independence Act would still provide the same level of funding to the school districts but would eliminate school property taxes by using state revenues. Cox proposes funding the new state revenues using three sources. First, he suggests raising the state’s personal income tax to 4 percent (from the current 3.07 percent). Secondly, Cox has specific sales tax loopholes that would close and finally, HB 1776 increase state sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent.

Loopholes in the state’s sales tax include currently exempt personal services such as dry cleaning, funeral expenses, and amusement parks and professional services such as legal, architectural and accounting. HB 1776 would also close sales loopholes that exempt newspapers, magazines, flags, gum, candy plus clothing and footwear (items $50 and higher). I had no idea that newspapers and magazines were sales tax exempt – you pay sales tax on books, so I don’t see why there isn’t sales tax on newspapers and magazines! Flags – exempt? Yes, US Flags and Commonwealth flags are exempt from sales tax.

The Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition, which states that they are ‘dedicated to equitable tax funding of Pennsylvania schools’ believes that “… Runaway property taxes are destroying Pennsylvania’s economy, driving away its residents, and are discouraging entrepreneurs from starting new businesses that would create jobs for Pennsylvanians.” The group has created the following list of ten reasons why property tax should be eliminated in Pennsylvania:

  1. Achieve True Home Ownership
  2. Stabilize school funding
  3. Help prevent foreclosures
  4. Restore plummeting real estate values
  5. Boost the sagging housing market
  6. Attract business to Pennsylvania
  7. Generate jobs for Pennsylvanians
  8. Create a massive stimulus for Pennsylvania
  9. Increase personal wealth
  10. Stop costly reassessments

Looking over this list of reasons to get rid of property taxes, I’m struggling to see the downside to this proposed legislation? Most of the items on the list would be very helpful to the school districts as they struggle to meet the demands of their budgets. Wouldn’t we like to ‘stabilize school funding’ and not worry about ‘costly reassessments’ from commercial and residential homeowners affecting school district budgets?

Eliminating property tax escrow payment would certainly help all homeowners and I would think could encourage new home ownership. Tredyffrin Easttown School District residents have been fortunate for the most part, as property values (although not increasing) have not declined as many other areas in Pennsylvania. But realistically, how much longer will TESD residents enjoy that situation? If TESD is forced to continue to make cuts to meet the demands of the budget, our property values may suffer as a result.

It looks to me like the proposed Property Tax Independence Act could be a win-win for school districts and taxpayers. It would eliminate the need for school property taxes but on the other hand would stabilize funding for school districts through the use of a broader revenue system by utilizing sales and use tax. HB 1776 provides for a predictable revenue stream which would allow school districts to focus on education and the performance of their students instead of the continuing budget crisis.

If the Property Tax Independence Act were to make it through the legislative approval process, it would immediately freeze school property taxes at its current levels and begin reducing school property tax bill with the next tax bill. Clearly, I must be missing the real ‘negative’ in the school finance reform as proposed by HB 1776 because you know the saying, “if it looks too good to be true, it probably is”! Here’s hoping that someone gives me a reason why HB 1776 isn’t a good idea.

Unions … Prevailing Wage Law Could Decide Local Elections

Prevailing wage and the possibility of its repeal in Pennsylvania may prove to be a major election issue for local political candidates this year. The prevailing wage law was enacted in 1961 and applies to any project of more than $25,000. The law requires workers on publicly funded construction projects get the going rate for the area and those end up being union rates. However, part of the problem, is that the prevailing wage threshold was never adjusted during the 50 intervening years.

We expect our school districts and local governments to survive with shrinking funds and few remaining options. Desperate to find ways to stretch the taxpayer dollars more efficiently, local governments are often times faced with deferring construction projects as well as routine maintenance because they exceed the $25,000 prevailing wage threshold, making them too expensive.

State Rep Warren Kampf’s proposed legislation, House Bill 709 – “School Construction Cost Reduction Act” applies only to Pennsylvania school districts unlike other proposals that call for a repeal of the prevailing wage law. HB 709 would only exempt school districts from the state’s prevailing wage requirements.

In the midst of an economic crisis and on the edge of the financial cliff, HB 709 could be seen as a way to save cash-strapped school districts money. According to Kampf’s legislative website, the Phoenixville School District school board as endorsed his proposed legislation which if approved, would give school districts the option of being exempt from the prevailing wage law.

The argument from the union side is that the proposed changes in prevailing wages will negatively impact union construction workers by reducing wages and suggest it will ultimately affect the communities in which they live. There is also concern that the quality of the construction work will diminish if prevailing wage law were to be repealed. But how do you balance the state’s funding gaps against prevailing wage laws that may now be too costly?

Should Pennsylvania move in the direction of competitive private wages through reform or elimination of the prevailing wage laws? Not if the union workers prevail. Last week I wrote about the carpenters’ union rally in Paoli and was surprised when I was notified that a national union organization, The We Party, picked up the Community Matters story. The article with photos of the Paoli rally, appear on the front page at http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/ side by side with union articles from California, Missouri, Florida and New York State.

According to their website, The We Party,

“… exists to counter and correct the excessive misinformation that is broadcast regarding the rights of the Modern American Worker and the needs of the New American Economy. Our mission is to attract the American public to the information resources necessary to elect candidates who represent the country’s best interests and to encourage the American people to participate in the achievement of policy initiatives that embolden the middle class and those in pursuit of the American dream.”

When it comes to local school districts, it will be interesting if we see school boards supporting proposed prevailing wage legislation, such as HB 709 but will teachers support their fellow union brothers and sisters in the construction trades?

According to We Party Patriots mission statement, their support will be squarely behind the pro-union political candidates. The prevailing wage debate may prove to be a deciding factor in local elections in Pennsylvania this year.

Pennsylvanians May Soon Enjoy Home Delivery of Wine From Out-of-State

Have you every visited a winery and wanted to ship a case of your favorite bottles to your home only to remember that option is not possible if you are a PA resident and the winery is out-of-state?

In Harrisburg yesterday, the option for Pennsylvania residents to have wine shipped directly to their homes from out-of-state wineries just moved a step closer to reality. Senators unanimously approved PA SB 790, 48-0 that would allow Pennsylvanians to buy as many as 24 bottles of domestic wine per month from US wineries. Purchases can be made over the Internet, telephone or by mail. The boxes would have to be marked as containing alcohol and require an adult’s signature and proper identification before a shipment is delivered.

Senate Bill 790 now moves to the House. However, it is possible that SB 790 will be tied in with PA HB 11, a bill to privatize liquor and wine sales that has been on the sidelines for several months. Since Gov. Corbett took office, there has been discussion about privatizingPennsylvania’s liquor store system. Apparently, there was difficulty reaching a consensus among legislators, and in the meantime, other options to improve the current system have been explored.

Pennsylvania House Bill 11 is a departure from the original intent, which was to sell off the state’s wine and liquor stores. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) is the largest purchaser of wine and spirits in the US. No doubt, a primary factor in slow rolling selling the stores is that the 610 LCB stores hit a new retail year record in 2010-11 with sales topping $1.9 billion. With the kind of revenue that LCB generates, what’s the saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

HB 11 takes a broader approach and makes beer and wine more accessible to consumers. The revised version includes a variety of issues including extending Sunday hours from 9 AM to 9 PM and allowing beer distributors to sell wine and 6-packs of beer. Under HB 11, the LCB continues to maintain and operate the stores selling liquor and wine. However, for $100 million each, wholesale wine licenses would become available, which suggests could lead to competitive pricing with the LCB. The bill contains another favorable addition – those locations with distributor licenses, which allow selling of beer, could also sell wine. (For me, that’s code meaning that Wegmans could sell bottles of wine in addition to beer).

Currently, Pennsylvania is one of only two states (the other is Utah) that owns and operates wholesale and retail sales of wine and spirits. Senate Bill 790 and House Bill 11 solve many of the issues that I have with the current system and, it protects the yearly revenue generated by the LCB and provides job security for the LCB state workers.

Combining the components of SB 790 and HB 11, what’s not to like about this legislation – it should satisfy everyone.

PA Senate Bill 1438 Allows NRA Lawsuits & Provides Take Your Gun to Work Rights

Move over PA House Bill 1523 and make room for PA Senate Bill 1438. For those following the proposed NRA-supported legislation that would allow someone to sue a municipality for their lost or stolen firearm regulations, the PA House tabled HB 1523 a few weeks ago.

I inaccurately assumed that the reason for the tabling the lost or stolen handgun reporting bill was that our Harrisburg legislators had a change of heart … and decided to support the towns and cities (Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Lancaster, Allentown, etc.) across the state with local reporting ordinances. However, in a recent meeting with Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-19), he explained that although the House was tabling HB 1523, a similar bill (SB 1438) would be on the Senate agenda when they returned to Harrisburg this week.

Senate Bill 1438 gives gun owners and membership organizations (which includes the National Rifle Association, NRA) legal standing to challenge any of municipality with ordinances that regulate firearms and ammunition. The language of the proposed legislation suggests the legal standing is regardless whether they live (or are connected to) Pennsylvania cities or towns with this kind of gun control ordinances. By granting legal standing to the NRA, allows the pro-gun organization to sue local municipalities, just like individual gun owners. Similar to the amended HB 1523, the proposed SB 1438 increases the scope and power of the NRA in Pennsylvania! Senate Bill 1438 has now moved to the Judiciary Committee for review.

If you own a car and it is stolen, you report it. If you own a pet and it is lost or stolen, you report it. So … if you a responsible gun owner, why would you not want to notify the police if it were stolen? All you have to say is the word ‘gun’ and some people immediately jump to the conclusion that someone is trying to take away their second amendment rights.

Today, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, mayors from the 30 Pennsylvania cities and towns with lost and stolen gun reporting ordinances are defending their local legislation, including Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. The mayors believe that their laws are helping to prevent crimes involving illegal guns. According to Nutter, of the 316 homicides in Philadelphia last year, 85 percent were with guns, all of which were illegal.

As if the HB 1523 was not sufficiently overreaching when it came to the rights of gun owners and the NRA, the proposed Senate bill ratchets the gun owner’s rights ever higher. If I understand the language in HB 1438 correctly, this proposed legislation will block employers from not allowing their employees to bring guns to work. If the proposed legislation passes, it could be ‘take you gun to work’ everyday and employers cannot set policy opposing it. Wow. Therefore, I guess this means that the employer has no rights when it comes to guns in the workplace but rather it is about the employee’s rights – that is, his or her rights to bring their guns to work. Think about the various types of workplaces and the thought that this proposed legislation would legally permit employees to take their guns … schools, childcare, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.

As I have said before, this is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. Based on the support for this type of pro-gun legislation in Pennsylvania, it has little to do with party affiliation but more about individual politicians and their constituent base.

Remembering that its election year and some of these politicians need to make sure that they are on the ‘right side’ of the National Rifle Association and, depending on the constituent base they represent, be seen as supporting second amendment rights. So, here is an interesting thought – to get elected in Pennsylvania in 2012, do candidates have to pack a weapon? Could it be that candidates fear that they may lose a vote or two if they are seen as supporting pro-gun legislation? The arm-twisting of the NRA probably assures that some legislators stay on the approved course.

I still have to wonder, why gun control discussion has to be black and white. Is it not possible to support the Constitution and the Second Amendment but also support some level of gun control in Pennsylvania?

Kampf Responds to Constitutionality of Voter ID Law and Claims No Financial Burden on Local/County Budgets to Implement

The passage of the photo voter ID bill earlier this month by state legislators made Pennsylvania the 16th state to adopt a strict voter identification policy and the ninth state to do so in the past year. The law requires voters to produce a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another government-issued photo ID, such as a US passport, military ID or county/municipal employee ID. The state will also accept college ID or personal care home IDs, as long as they are current and include an expiration date.

Pennsylvania’s photo voter ID law will not be in effect for the primary next but will be in effect in November, when Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes are at stake. Prior to the passage of the voter ID bill, I posted ‘PA Voter ID bill: costly and unnecessary… how about unconstitutional?’ on March 8. The post included an email sent from attorney and Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin W-2 district, Steve Shapiro to Rep Warren Kampf indicating concern that the photo voter identification legislation, House Bill 934 violated the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Steve received a response from Kampf and kindly shared the following information to post on Community Matters:

I received the letter linked below in the mail today from Rep. Kampf responding to my email. It does not address the issue I raised — my concern that the voter ID law violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (as opposed to the U.S. Constitution, which the letter does discuss) — and I suspect it is largely a form letter sent to all who wrote him about the bill. However, since I published my email to Rep. Kampf, I think it only fair that I publish his response:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz-1YRHzEOsqTER6TE5UTnVRcHFNQnUxRTI1cEJyZw/edit

I leave the constitutionality battle of the voter identification legislation to the attorneys, but I was interested in Kampf’s response on the issue of ‘cost’ for implementation. The following excerpt from Kampf’s letter, addresses the expense to implement the law:

” … Another issue that has been brought up is the cost of this law. I am mindful of any increases on our already over-burdened budget. The Pennsylvania Department of State intends to utilize Help America Vote Act funding (federal funding available to the Commonwealth) to fund the cost of the dissemination provision in calendar year 2012. The estimated citizen population in the Commonwealth is 9,642,277 as of January 2012. According to PennDOT, 9,552,700 adults have a PennDOT issued ID or 99.07% of the citizen population. Applying that percentage to all registered voters (8,8186,052 as of March 12) would total a potential 76,048 IDs. Not all of these would be paid for by the General Fund if some of those individuals could afford to pay for the identification themselves, or they did not need it because of the other forms of identification now permitted. Further, the Governor has pledged to work with the Aging Office and PennDOT to make sure those who need an identification card have speedy access to one.

We do not believe this legislation will have adverse impact on local or county budgets. The Department of State will handle the 2012 dissemination requirement and indicates that they are recommending that counties publish the new requirements in their required newspaper proclamations before each election, therefore creating no new additional costs to the counties… ‘

Although Kampf states that the voter ID legislation will not have an adverse impact on local and county budgets, estimates for implementation and education have circulated that indicate actual costs will be in the millions. The nonpartisan Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center put the estimate to implement as high as $11 million based on the experiences of other states. If Kampf is correct in his assessment and local municipal budgets will not affected, how will the state absorb the implementation costs? What programs or departments will need to be cut (or minimally reduced) in the state budget to offset the expense to implement voter identification?

In a difficult fiscal environment, when the state is facing making record cuts to education, higher education and other crucial programs, where will the money come from to pay for the implementation of the voter ID system? As a concerned taxpayer, I want to believe that Kampf is correct in his assessment and that there will be no financial burden to implement this legislation. However, as a realist, I don’t see how implementation of the voter ID process is possible without an attached price tag.

Setting aside the implementation cost debate of the voter ID legislation, what about large legal bills when the state is required to defend the voter ID legislation. Lawsuits over the constitutionality of the voter ID law are almost certain, which translates into substantial costs and exposure for Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Public Pension Reform Needed in Pennsylvania

I attended Rep. Warren Kampf’s town hall meeting, which focused on the state pension system and its impact on the budgets at the state and local level, with specific attention on the additional burden for our school district. Kampf provided an in-depth overview of the state pension system for state workers and teachers and the need for reform. By the use of a slide presentation, Kampf offered background and history of the state retirement system and a timeline as to how we arrived at the current underfunded pension crisis and proposals for reform.

(To review Kampf’s town hall meeting pension reform slides, click here. There are 19 slides, so it takes a couple of minutes to load.)

What are the reasons that Pennsylvania is now facing a multi-billion dollar public pension crisis? Kampf offered three – benefits, stock market/rate of return and underfunding. The stock market declined in 2001 and then we saw the substantial losses of the market in 2008. The declining rate of return from the stock market had a direct impact onPennsylvania’s public pension plan.

As Kampf explained, the state has no ‘raining day’ fund to help with the pension crisis whereas T/E School District has one of the largest fund balances of all school districts in the state — $30 million. Trying to manage their budgets, the state’s pension crisis has pushed school districts across the state to the edge of the cliff. There was praise to our school district for the good job they have done in spite of the pension crisis.

Many in the audience wanted Harrisburg to ‘fix’ the current pension plan and change it not only for future hires but for those workers currently in the system. Kampf explained that due to the state constitution, that although not legally impossible, it would take years to change the constitution to enact any change affecting state workers vested in the current retirement plan. Realistically speaking, any proposed pension reform legislation should focus on future employees in the system.

Various options for changing the current pension retirement plan were offered and discussed – (1) a defined contribution 401(k) type of plan, (2) a hybrid plan with a defined benefit as a component. This plan sounds like social security and is viewed as a ‘half’ measure; it gets you somewhere but not far enough, and (3) a cash balance plan with mandatory employer contribution shared between shared between the state and school district but was not viewed as solving liability.

According to Kampf, the proposed pension reform legislation that he plans to introduce will suggest a 401(k) type of retirement plan. He was clear that the current retirement plan needs to change – the state needs to stop adding additional workers to the current system. As he says, the bottom line is that there is no easy way out and any pension reform will require discipline.

Kampf understands the pension crisis and appears to have a vision for how the state needs to move forward to correct the problem. The traditional package of retirement benefits for state employees and teachers has become unaffordable and I support pension reform – and sooner rather than later. For future pension benefits, I think that the state should switch solely to a defined-contribution model, akin to a 401(k) model, for new hires. This will help prevent the underfunded-pension liability problem from worsening while the state climbs out of its present multi-billion dollar hole. For the record, I do not support any change for those public workers vested in the current retirement plan; only for new hires.

If Kampf’s proposed legislation for pension reform includes a 401(K) type of retirement plan, his plan will have my support. State and local governments around the country are taking similar steps to reduce retirement costs, often prompting battles with labor unions. Structural and long-term reforms to the pension system could go a long way toward improving the fiscal outlook of state and local government. However, the issue of pension reform could be a political minefield for state legislator. Kampf’s pension reform is probably not going to be him in a favorable position with the teacher’s union (PSERS) or the state employees union (SERS).

Pennsylvania is not alone in its need for pension reform. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, from 2009 to 2011, 43 states enacted major changes to retirement plans for public employees and teachers. I hope that through pension reform legislation, the burden pension systems place on state budgets and taxpayers can lessen, while still ensuring a stable financial future for government workers.

Kampf’s Proposed Prevailing Wage Reform Legislation Brings Union Pickets to Paoli

Anyone that follows Community Matters knows that I am a Wegmans fan but after my experience yesterday, I may find myself shopping at the Acme in Paoli more often.

Around 3 PM on Wednesday, as I left Acme there was a large organized group of men in the parking lot changing into identical white t-shirts, many with signs and American flags. As I got closer, I could see several pick-up trucks with signage with anti-Warren Kampf messages – ‘Working Families Against Kampf’, ‘Kampf Works Against Workers’, etc. Clueless as to whom these people were and what they were doing, I asked and was told that they were members of Pennsylvania’s Carpenter’s Union and they were ‘taking their message’ to State Rep Warren Kampf’s office in Paoli.

I was far from clear on exactly what the union members ‘message’ was, but … frankly, I had the distinct impression that these people had a mission and that they were not particularly interested in engaging in conversation. It is not everyday that there is a long line of union picketers walking along Lancaster Avenue, and I decided that if I followed them, that I would eventually figure it out.

By the time the large group of 85-100 arrived at the door to Warren Kampf’s office,Lancaster Avenue and Darby Road was filled with honking motorists showing their support. Slowly circling the Paoli streets, each of the accompanying pick-up trucks had amplifiers loudly broadcasting pro-union, anti-Kampf commentary.

OK, I finally figured out the mission of these union representatives and the purpose of their afternoon rally in Paoli — PA House Bill 709. Rep Kampf sponsored HB 709, which eliminates school districts from the coverage of the Prevailing Wage Act. The passage of the bill would allow an individual school district to vote to pay its contractors a prevailing wage if a school board wishes to do so.

In early 2011, Kampf introduced “School Construction Cost Reduction Act” (HB 709) to reduce costs for school districts by exempting them from the state’s prevailing wage requirements. Kampf explained his proposed reform legislation in his 2011 summer newsletter, in an article titled “My Prevailing WAGE reform” stating,

“Forcing them [school districts] to pay an inflated rate for public contracts is both fiscally unwise and burdensome to taxpayers, particularly to those on fixed incomes who face annual increases in property taxes. Prevailing wage rules require public agencies to pay contractors a wage set by bureaucrats, which usually equals the local union rate. In some cases, that inflates wages well above what that contractor’s work is worth in a particular location.

My bill would exempt school districts as a public entity required by state law to pay prevailing wages. It allows individual school districts to vote to pay their contractors a prevailing wage if they wish to. Requiring our public agencies to pay higher wages makes no sense, especially at a time of financial hardship. School districts are struggling to balance their budgets. Forcing them to pay wages to contractors well above what the private sector pays places an excessive burden on schools and taxpayers. This must change.”

Although tabled last fall, according to the PA State House calendar, the proposed HB 709 legislation is coming off the table and is scheduled for discussion by state legislators on Monday, March 26.

Understanding the financial crisis that school districts across the state are now in, it is certainly plausible that the proposed HB 709 legislation that could help by saving district’s money. On the other hand, is there a risk that this prevailing wage reform bill could result in work performed by undertrained, non-union contractors that could potentially result in higher long-term costs to the school districts? The opposing views on this issue do not appear to be as simple as a ‘pro versus anti-union’ argument.

From what I surmised by the picketing Carpenter Union workers, they are of the mind that changing the prevailing wages laws does nothing more than increase the challenge and burden for union workers and their families. But how does that argument weigh against the possible savings to school districts (taxpayers) … and could one additionally argue that prevailing wage reform could create more jobs because school districts would be able to stretch their money further and spend money on more projects would have gone to wages?

I can see both sides of this argument – possible cost-savings to school districts in an economic climate of great need versus the hardship that could be placed on union workers and their families in a time when jobs are difficult to find.

——————————————————————————————-

For a 45 second YouTube video, click hereCarpenter’s Union Protest in Paoli .

Click here to read PA House Bill 709.

——————————————————————————————-

Stormwater Issues – No Easy Solutions

Last night marked the Township’s third public hearing for the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District ordinance in as many months. The Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District ordinance would permit additional redevelopment usages on large properties in the Trout Creek Watershed in exchange for much-needed stormwater facilities help. In addition to the public hearings on this topic, there have been multiple other meetings both public and in small groups with township staff, supervisors, planning commissioners, Richter property developer and residents.

Township manager Mimi Gleason gave an overview slide presentation detailing the proposed ordinance, its history and the process. The idea for the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance originated with the 2010 ‘Trout Creek Watershed Study and Stormwater Best Management Practice Analysis’. The Richter property was one of the 10 locations named in the study for stormwater best management practice in the township and suggested a 6-8 acre stormwater basin for that location.

Although the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance would apply to all applicable properties within the Trout Creek Watershed area, it is the 36 acre parcel located at Swedesford and Old Eagle School Roads – the Richter property – that is the focus and concern for the Glenhardie neighbors. It should be noted that the Richter tract is the largest undeveloped property in the Trout Creek Watershed but as the economy improves, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment change could be used elsewhere in the district as an incentive for developers.

Prior to public comment, the supervisor chair Michelle Kichline made a motion to remove retail with accessory gas and multi-family/apartments from the proposed Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District Ordinance. Although the Planning Commissioners included these usages in the proposed ordinance, the motion passed unanimously. As explained by Kichline, there would be no vote on the ordinance at last night’s meeting. Due to the level of prior public input on the subject, Kichline asked that all resident remarks focus specifically on the ordinance itself.

As we know, Joe Duckworth of Arcadia Land Company is the possible developer for the Richter tract. Duckworth continues to reach out to the neighbors and offered his email and cell phone number ‘on the record’ during the public hearing. As part of his proposed carriage houses/townhouse development project for this site, would be the inclusion of a 6-8 acre stormwater basin.

Several residents asked about the possibility for the township to acquire property through eminent domain. As explained by township solicitor Vince Donohue, although legal this process would be long and expensive, both in acquisition and in legal fees. In other words, what I heard – not a very practical solution.

To further study the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District situation, Kichline announced a ‘working group’ with supervisor Phil Donohue and resident Tom Coleman. The group would include members of the planning commission and local Glenhardie residents. Their mission would be to meet for 6-8 weeks and offer recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Generally, I am a proponent of citizen task forces and hope that this working group will be inclusive and representative of the views of all residents affected; the mission and direction of this group should be defined clearly.

The stormwater challenges in Tredyffrin Township have been 300 years in the making and certainly are not going to be solved quickly. Whether you live in the Glenhardie area or the Great Valley area of the township, stormwater issues exist. Historically, stormwater systems were designed to collect and quickly move runoff as a way to prevent localized flooding or erosion. Over time, it has become evident that the traditional curb-and-gutter approach was not sufficient.

I am of the opinion that the stormwater challenge facing Tredyffrin is going to require a shift in the fundamental philosophy of our local government and its residents. One of the hallmarks of recent township supervisor elections has been the promise of no tax increases or no new taxes. But given the dramatic infrastructure problems facing this community, how much longer can that viewpoint work? What we are now seeing is that the monetary cost of managing stormwater is high but the potential cost of inaction is even higher.

Beyond understanding that stormwater is a problem, needs to be the acceptance that the management of stormwater is a very costly responsibility. Perhaps now is the time for our elected officials to seriously consider a stormwater utility. This option could provide a vehicle for consolidating or coordinating responsibilities and provide an effective alternative to financing the cost of stormwater management.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme