Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

Planning a Flash Mob? Better Keep it Quiet! The Noteable ‘Mobsters’ Perform in Wegmans’ Fruit & Vegetable Department

December 22, 2011
5 Comments

What is a ‘Flash Mob’?

For some, it is joining in with a crowd of strangers to dance in sync to the latest Lady Gaga song at a weekly exercise class. While many would be happy to keep their spastic limbs private, some groups of people prefer to gather spontaneously in a public space and perform a coordinated song or dance to thrill unwitting onlookers with their efforts.

According to Wikipedia, “A flash mob (or flashmob) [1] is a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and/or artistic expression.”

The participants in a flash mob – the ‘mobsters’, behave in a predetermined manner for a predetermined amount of time, and then quickly disperse. A successful flash mob event depends on the element of surprise.

Of course, the meet-up and the performances of a flash mob are entirely coordinated and often rehearsed. If you are planning a flash mob, you had better keep it quiet. However, sometimes that can be easier said then done, especially if the group of people participating is 20 middle-aged women.

For the past 28 years, I have been a member and the public relations person for the Noteables, a women’s singing group from the Main Line – Valley Forge area whose 20-25 members sing in 4-part harmony. Under the musical direction of Christine Puk, the Noteables perform a holiday concert series and a spring concert series with 8-10 concerts each season for audiences of nursing and retirement homes, veterans groups and for special local events.

Although family commitments, travel and jobs may at times, take Noteable members away from the Noteables, the groups’ motto is “Once a Noteable – Always a Noteable!”

Our final Noteable concert of the season on Monday was followed by a special holiday luncheon. During the luncheon and gift exchange, a couple of members had the idea that the Noteables needed one final performance of the season.

A couple of glasses of wine later and we were planning a ‘flash mob’. But where . . . ?

Any of you that are regular followers of Community Matters, know of my fascination and enthusiasm for Wegmans so . . . I decided the Noteable’s Flash Mob performance should be at ‘my Wegmans’, in their fruits and vegetable department.

Tonight at 6 PM, performing between the cantaloupes and the tomatoes, the Noteables sang ‘Rockin’ the Baby’ and a jazzy version of ‘We Wish You a Merry Christmas’. Proving once again that you never are ‘too old’, the Noteables can now add ‘Flash Mob’ to their list of memories!

Here’s the YouTube linkto our Noteable Flash Mob in the Wegmans Fruit and Vegetable Department. Tonight’s performance is dedicated to MJ Ormsbee and Natalie Zipkin . . . your dreams have now come true!

Police Chief Andy Chambers Tenders Resignation While on Suspension

December 20, 2011
18 Comments

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, we learned that Police Chief Andy Chambers would resign from the Tredyffrin Twp Police Department, effective December 20, 2011.

Chairman Bob Lamina read a prepared statement that indicated that Chambers made this personal decision to resign while serving a four-day suspension. Last week, the supervisors had suspended Chambers for allowing his 16-year old son to drive a township police car, and his failure to report the incident to the Board of Supervisors. The son was involved in an accident with the township vehicle but Chambers had taken responsibility for all associated costs (towing, repair, etc.) and the car is back in service.

As I have previously stated, and do so again – Andy Chambers is a good guy. Did he have a momentary lapse in judgment? Yes. But now, unfortunately he feels that the price for his mistake is resignation. I do not think that Chambers was under any pressure from the supervisors to resign. As far as the supervisors were concerned, the four-day suspension had settled the matter for supervisors.

I cannot imagine how difficult the last couple of weeks have been for Andy Chambers and his family. We all make mistakes in our lives but most live with the consequences privately. Chief Chambers’ mistake became public and the public scrutiny of his actions, no doubt painful for him and his family. As Lamina read in his statement, Chambers decided that his retirement was the right thing to do for the Tredyffrin police department and for the community. I am guessing that Chief Chambers’ suspension served as an opportunity for personal reflection on he concluded the decision to leave the police department was the right answer for him and his family.

I thank Chief Chambers for his 30 years of service to the community; and offer him best wishes for the future. And, for the record . . . in my book, you still are a ‘good guy’.

In other news from the supervisors meeting, the township budget was approved for 2012. Originally, the budget contained a 6.9% millage tax increase for 2012 but in the final budget, the supervisors lessened the increase to 3.5% millage tax increase. The final budget increase was shaved by reducing professional services and by reducing police hours. The 2012 township budget passed with a 6-1 vote. EJ Richter was the only supervisor to vote against the budget, stating that she was opposed to any tax increase.

The Board of Supervisors meeting marked the final supervisors meeting for Chairman Bob Lamina. After serving 13 years on the Board, Lamina did not seek re-election in the last election and will complete his term at the end of December. Several former supervisors attended last night’s meeting including John Shimrak, Judy DiFilippo, Paul Drucker and John Bravacos. Former and current supervisors joined members of the public and township staff at a reception following the meeting to thank Lamina for his years of service to the community.

Good Guys Can Make Mistakes, Part II

December 16, 2011
9 Comments

We are now learning more of the details and the timeline surrounding the suspension of Tredyffrin’s police chief Andy Chambers. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the township solicitor Vince Donohue explains that there were two reasons for the Board of Supervisor’s disciplinary action and suspension of Chambers.

There were questions and speculation as to when the supervisors learned of the accident involving Chamber’s 16-year-old on November 23. According to the paper, Board of Supervisors chair Bob Lamina first learned of the incident when he received an anonymous letter on December 4. However, it was not until the day after, on December 5 that Chambers called Lamina to tell him of the incident. (which by that point, Lamina was already aware).

After conducting an investigation and interviewing 15 people, the supervisors suspended Chambers for 4 days because he (1) allowed his 16-year-old to drive a township police car, which was then involved in an accident and (2) his failure to tell the township supervisors.

As I said yesterday, I really like Andy Chambers and understand that as parents we all make mistakes. However, I had also assumed that he had owned his mistake immediately and had come forward at the time the incident occurred. Unfortunately, we now know that he waited 12 days to report the incident (after the anonymous letter detailing the incident was received). This suggests that if the anonymous letter was not received, the Board of Supervisors may never have known of the incident.

To their credit, the supervisors acted immediately with an investigation that resulted in Chamber’s suspension for 4 days. In addition to the suspension, Chambers paid for the vehicle towing, damage and mechanic’s time to repair the car, which is now back in service.

In reading the comments on the newspaper sites and on Community Matters, many have focused on the anonymous ‘whistle blower(s)’ who turned in the chief as being the real culprit. It has been suggested that this incident is not a big deal and offer that some are simply out to get the police chief.

I have to disagree. As the leader of an organization, he or she has a responsibility to ‘set the bar high’ and to lead by example. Should not be a case of ‘”Do what I say, not what I do”. However, we all make mistakes and I have a feeling that Chief Chambers will live with the regrets of this mistake for a long time.

Do I think that he should have told the supervisors back in November when the incident occurred versus waiting until after the Board of Supervisors received the anonymous letter? Yes, but again hindsight is 20-20. I wasn’t there when the incident occurred and so have no idea what went into Andy’s decision not to immediately report the incident. Presumably, he had his reasons . . .

We will hear a statement of explanation at Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I have to believe that Chambers will do his best to repair any damage inside of his department that this incident may have caused and then everyone will try to move forward.

As I said yesterday, I am disappointed in Andy Chamber’s actions but at the same time, I feel sorry for him — we’ve all had those momentary lapses of judgment. This incident just proves that even the good guys can make mistakes.

A Life Lesson that Good Guys Can Still Make Mistakes . . .

December 14, 2011
15 Comments

An article appeared in the December 14 edition of the Daily Local, ‘Chief suspended after son crashes police car’ . According to the article, Tredyffrin’s Chief of Police Andy Chambers was suspended for 4 days as a result of allowing his 16-yr old son to drive a township police car and was subsequently involved in an accident with the vehicle on November 23.

First off, let me say that I like and respect Andy Chambers – he’s one of the ‘good guys’ — someone who supports the residents of Tredyffrin Township and cares about this community. Was this simply one of those dumb lapses of judgement that as parents we sometimes have? You know one of those times when something seemed like a good idea at the time but in hindsight, we realize it wasn’t too smart.

The story as reported in the paper explains that an Emergency Vehicle Operator Course (EVOC) training was held in Bridgeport,and Chamber’s son (with a learner’s permit) was allowed to drive a Tredyffrin Township police cruiser on the training course. In driving the car on the course, the kid somehow had an accident with the police car which caused enough damage that the car had to be towed. The accident also slightly injured a trainer who was in the car with Chamber’s son.

There is an upcoming supervisors meeting on Monday, December 19. Will the supervisors inform the township residents of the situation and of Chamber’s 4-day suspension? It’s important that the facts surrounding the matter are fully understood. Otherwise, the rumor mill will churn out its own version of the story unless the supervisors present the timeline of events and the facts.

Although Chambers paid for the towing and repairs to the township vehicle, there remain questions surrounding the incident. Assuming that the Daily Local is correct, it is unclear when the Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors were notified of the incident as no police report was made at the time of the accident. Did the supervisors only learn of the accident from the Daily Local reporting?

Having read the article in the Daily Local, John Petersen wrote the following email to Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors and copied myself as well as the writer of the Daily Local article Jennifer Carboni and Susan Greenspon, editor of the Main Line Media News. Assuming that the information is correct in the newspaper account, John makes some very interesting legal and liability points concerning this incident. John also states that he likes Chief Chambers and like me, considers him one of the ‘good guys’.

I am disappointed in Andy Chamber’s actions but at the same time I feel sorry for him — we’ve all had those momentary lapses of judgment. This incident just proves that even the good guys can make mistakes.

 

To: Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors
Subject: Cover up???

Clearly, WAY more to this story. If this reporting is accurate, then it appears clear that the BOS (as a body) – didn’t know about this until the letters were emailed by the DL. That does not negate the possibility that one or more supervisors knew what happened. What is interesting is the citation to the Motor Vehicle Code. It appears clear that there was an affirmative duty to report the accident. That may be something that Risa Ferman may have to deal with. I have but one question in this whole thing – “When did Andy tell you guys about this?”

Based on Donahue’s interesting word choice that Andy “admitted” what happened, that would lead one to conclude that he [Andy] was confronted with the information. The lack of a police report supports that conclusion. If that is the case, then that is a fireable offense.

As the old saying goes, it’s never the underlying issue, it’s the cover up that gets you. Let’s remember, this was township property. Who in the world would permit a non-township employee, let alone a 16-year-old pre-licensed driver to drive a police cruiser – regardless of whether it was on a closed course. As Howard Baker in 1973 during the Watergate Hearings asked [slightly paraphrased] “What did they know…and when did they know it?” That is the question – when did Andy tell you guys on the BOS? Again, if he didn’t tell you until the DL made you guys [as a board] aware, then that is most definitely a fireable offense. On the other hand, if the board knew back on 11/23-24, then why wait so long to suspend him.

The other disturbing aspect of this, if true, is that this was driven by un-named members of the TTPD. The timing of the letters is interesting. The first one was the Friday before the BOS meeting of 12/5. Clearly, nothing happened – which prompted another letter on 12/8. It’s all rather peculiar, and admittedly, speculation on my part..

Finally… I like Andy. He’s a good guy. And yes – he as given loyal service to the Tredyffrin Citizens over these many years. I supported his succession to chief in 2008. However, those in leadership have to live to a higher standard – a point I’ve made clear to all of you in the past vis-a-vis St. David’s, fire funding, etc. If this was all duly reported, then I agree with the sanctions as levied.

However, the timing and information contained in the aforementioned news article, if accurate, indicates that the events were not duly reported – and that transgression is far worse than the substantive issue. And let’s also remember that Andy allowing his son to operate a township vehicle put the township in harm’s way. The township was opened to liability – and it is far from certain that the terms and conditions set forth in the policy (the township is self insured) would have covered the liability. What if somebody was run over, permanently injured or worse, killed?

I fully expect the BOS to brief the public on what happened. This is where it counts to be fully transparent. And – this is why we need a properly functioning press so that matters like this get the spotlight they require.

Many thanks to the Daily Local for their reporting. I trust the reporting is accurate. And if so, I trust the BOS to do the right thing.

Regards,

John V. Petersen
Former Member, Tredyffrin BOS

Loss of $570K in T/E Real Estate Appeals & Outsourcing of Custodial Services Remains a Strategy Option for TESD

December 13, 2011
24 Comments

There was a T/E Finance Committee meeting last night and although the entire school board was present, the Finance Committee is Betsy Fadem (Chair), Kevin Buraks, Jim Bruce and Rich Brake.

There were several interesting discussion items for me – Ray Clarke’s notes follow mine. There was much discussion about the school district’s decreasing real estate tax revenue. We learned that for 2011, there have been 147 successful residential real estate assessment appeals ($217K) and 41 successful commercial appeals ($352K) for a combined total of $570K in lost tax revenue. The largest commercial appeal was by Vanguard who was successful in five separate appeals. There was discussion about the school districting appealing the decisions on some of these successful commercial appeals. The example of Mealey’s Furniture and Big Lots was used – where a commercial real estate owner could have appealed their tax assessment while their real estate was vacant, received a lower assessment and then the property is leased and its value goes back up (but the commercial owner remains at the lower assessed rate). The case could be made by the school district that the assessed value of the commercial real estate has gone up and they should now pay more.

Appealing some of these commercial decisions could be a way to generate additional revenue for the school district. However, what was unclear was the ‘cost’ of these appeals to the school district (financial and staff time). In Harrisburg, there is discussion on requiring nonprofits organizations to pay real estate taxes. This was not discussed at last night’s meeting, but should this change occur, there is some new tax revenue to the school district. I wonder what kind of revenue could be generated from real estate owned by nonprofit organizations.

Another possibility for generating school district revenue was to shorten number of days on the school calendar. Apparently, TESD’s current school year is 9 days longer than the state requirement. For each non-teaching day, the district would save $200K in teacher and benefit costs. Shortening the school year by 9 days would yield $1.8 million in district savings. This is an interesting cost-savings approach and clearly the district cannot cut all 9 days. Some of those extra days are in the calendar if snow days require their use. But does it need to be 9 extra days — the last few days of a school year are not productive so what about cutting those half-days at the end of the year from the calendar.

(Note: It is not entirely clear to Ray Clarke and myself re the 9 days. Ray understood that strategy had to do with the 9 in-service days of the teachers ‘only’ and decreasing those in-service teacher days versus my understanding that the strategy involved decreasing the number of calendar school days. Ray has a call in to the school district for clarification and I will update when the information is available.)

A ‘new’ budget strategy under review for FY2012-13 was listed as ‘reduce equipment budget’ – $300K. I was clueless what ‘equipment’ this referred to – turns out the administration is suggesting reducing IT equipment purchases for the district. This is confusing because computer equipment was on the chopping block for the FY2011-12 budget and then when Corbett returned funding to the school districts (TESD received $1.3 million) the T/E school board discussed the putting the computer equipment back into the budget. Ultimately, the $1.3 million was added to the fund balance. So now here we are again with another round with IT equipment and a strategy to reduce the budget by $300K. Where is the school district’s long-range technology strategy? Taking technology ‘on and off’ the budget each year is not a strategy!

The outsourcing of the custodial services carried over from last year’s budget strategies and at $950K remains the most significant line listing of possible savings. The school district was able to save the in-house custodial services for the FY2011-12, helped greatly by the union members not taking raises for this year. As reported last night, their members are working with the school board on ways they continue to lower costs. More information should be available in January.

Ray Clarke’s comments from the Finance Committee Meeting:

At Monday’s meeting the TESD Finance Committee decided – I think – that it will recommend that the full Board on January 3rd 2012 not limit the 2012/13 tax increase to no more than the Act 1 Index increase of 1.7%. However, there seemed to be a sentiment that the tax increase in the Preliminary Budget (required therefore to be made available by January 5th) be capped at the Index plus Exceptions (a total of a 3.3% increase). Anything more would require a referendum.

A few observations:

  1. The property tax rate goes up as the base goes down. Successful appeals have cost over $0.5 million in revenue for 2012/13. The Index increase raises $1.5 million. The Committee did not pay much heed to the linkage.
  2. The Committee plans to raise property taxes through “Exceptions” that compensate for the increase in PSERS expenses just about dollar for dollar, while sitting on $15 million of taxpayer money in the Fund Balance earmarked for exactly that purpose and with no plan whatsoever as to when the money might be used.
  3. With the $3.3 million tax increase and visible budget strategies worth $0.7 million, the 2012/13 deficit is projected to be about $2.5 million. On top of the quantified strategies, there was a report of constructive discussions with TENIG (for savings at some percentage of the $950,000 out-sourcing estimate) and the option to cut up to nine teacher in-service days, worth $0.2 million per day. It appears that these numbers made the Committee comfortable that any gap after the 3.3% property tax increase could be covered from the Fund Balance.
  4. Notable that the largest expense decrease is $300,000 from reduced IT hardware spending. Is that the same line item that was last recommended for an increase to use of some of the $1.3 million state windfall? Is there an IT strategy at all??
  5. There was mention of a sentiment inHarrisburgto again reduce the social security match, and also to even reduce the PSERS match. Not quite the direction desired by the advocates of a state solution to the problem!
  6. The cost of the current benefit plan was mentioned in passing. $19,000 per year for family coverage. I have to think that a majority of union members would be willing to restructure the plan, if it meant more cash compensation and an overall benefit to the district. There was no discussion of any change to the status quo salary/benefits projection in the financial model.

It should be noted that this recommendation does not preclude the tax increase being lower than the Index plus Exceptions, but we know how that works!

PSERS Employer Rate Set at 12.36% for 2012-13 — Could have been 29.65%!

December 11, 2011
3 Comments

Many of the comments lately on Community Matters have centered around the upcoming teacher contract negotiations and a forecasted school district deficit of $3.25 million. The PSERS crisis has reached epic proportions and many are suggesting that the problem needs to get ‘fixed’ in Harrisburg. During the last election, several school board candidates pointed their fingers at the state for help in school district bailout.

A variety of factors, including stock market volatility and a poor economy led to the system breakdown. This should not be a teachers’ union versus taxpayers or school board issue. PSERS is not broken because school districts did not make their fair share of payments to the system. School districts did pay what they were required to pay. It’s the ‘fix’ of the broken system that is difficult.

Over half of the PSERS system is funded by investment returns; the stock market crash in 2003 and the down economy these past two years have been in the primary factors in the PSERS problems. Investment earnings are the primary source of funding the PSERS benefits – not the contributions from school employees and taxpayers.

Again, what is the solution to fix the system? Proposed plans can only impact new school employees, it cannot affect existing employees already in the system.

PSEA teacher union president Jim Testerman, supports the current pension plan, “There are no easy solutions, but one thing is clear: the state and school districts must keep their promise to fully fund school employees’ pensions. The current PSERS benefit plan encourages individuals to become and remain educators, and ensures a stable and highly qualified workforce in our public schools.

There is a naivety to Testerman’s stance – what we want and what we can afford may not line up economically. In a perfect world, we would not be facing this economic crisis, and a funding change would not be necessary.

PSERS Board of Trustees released a press release on Friday which certified the employer contribution rate of 12.36% for FY 2012-13. Of the 12.36% employer contribution, 0.86% is for health insurance premium assistance and a pension rate of 11.50%.

According to the press release, were it not for the rate caps set in the 2010 Act 120 legislation, the employer rate would have jumped to 29.65% rather than the 12.36%. Beginning with the next fiscal year, members of the pension fund will contribute an average of 7.40% of their salary to help fund the retirement benefits.

Investment performance for PSERS for quarter ending Sept. 30, 2011 was posted at (-3.62%); 8.45% for the one year period and 6.95% for the 10 year period ending Sept. 30, 2011. Obviously, the extreme volatility in the markets is cited as the downward trending of performance.

According to the press release, “As of September 30, 2011, PSERS had 12.7% of its assets in non-U.S. equities; 10.8% in U.S. equities; 20.5% in U.S. and global fixed income investments; 21.5% in private markets; 12.0% in real estate; 4.1% in commodities, 11.7% in absolute return strategies, and 6.7% in cash and cash equivalents.”

Monday night is the Finance Committee meeting of the TESD – click here for the agenda. Under budget strategies for 2012-13, there are only two significant cost-savings that remain (other than educational program cuts). The outsourcing of custodial services ($950K) heads the list with a potential savings of $300K in equipment budgets. It is not clear what the equipment budget entails.

Without a T/E School District Public Information Committee any longer, I am anxious to hear the details of the ‘Communication Plan’ listed on the agenda for the Finance Committee. Betsy Fadem has been appointed chair of the Finance Committee; I am hopeful that she continues the district’s recent transparent and open public policy on school board matters.

 

How a Capital City Goes from a $300 million Debt to a State Takeover!

December 9, 2011
1 Comment

Harrisburg’s $300 million incinerator debt has the capital in the middle of a state takeover and the twists and turns of the story read like a Nancy Drew mystery novel.

In 2003, city officials in Harrisburg borrowed $125 million to rebuild their enormous trash incinerator, which the federal government had shut down due to toxic air pollution.

The incinerator project quickly became a “money pit” as delays, cost overruns and troubles with contractors forced the city to borrow tens of millions more to complete the project. The project was eventually completed but to the tune of a staggering $300 million price tag. However, far from the moneymaker that the city officials were banking on, the lucrative contracts to burn trash in the new incinerator never materialized.

City officials were betting that by expanding the size of the incinerator, they would be able to burn enough garbage from neighboring counties to generate sufficient steam to be sold to covers costs and debt service. Unfortunately, the city officials lost that bet with many counties opted not to use the new incinerator. Even before the refit was complete, one of the general contractors went bankrupt. Today the steam generated by the plant barely covers its daily cost of its operation.

Faced with owing bond collectors more than they could afford to pay and on the verge of bankruptcy, the incinerator served as a constant reminder of a failed infrastructure project. Trying to buy down the incinerator debt, the city laid off 32 employees and increased taxes, to no avail.

To raise cash, Harrisburg’s mayor Linda Thompson suggested selling off the city-owned parking garages and even City Island, a park in the middle of the Susquehanna River, to a real estate developer. Thompson had little support from the City Council and residents for those ideas. An alternative was to have the state of Pennsylvania come in and take over the city much like a bankruptcy judge, but members of the City Council didn’t much like that option. Instead, against Mayor Thompson’s opposition, the City Council voted 4-3 to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in October. But, was this bankruptcy maneuver legal by the city council . . . ?

Harrisburg (population 50,000) is faced with debts exceeding $300 million or about five times the city’s annual budget and became late in making a $65 million debt service payment. The city is currently being sued by six creditors and is in imminent jeopardy of not being able to provide minimum services to its citizens.

Following the declaration of Chapter 9 by Harrisburg’s City Council, in steps the state of Pennsylvania.

In October, Corbett officially launched his Harrisburg takeover. Corbett claimed that, “Harrisburg’s “City Council failed to enact an adequate recovery plan to deal with the city’s distressed finances has led me to declare a fiscal emergency”. On October 20, Corbett signed a law (Senate Bill 1151) enabling an unprecedented takeover of Harrisburg and its finances, including the ability to use the city’s money to ensure that government continues to operate services, issues paychecks to employees and make pensions and debt payment.

Next chapter of the story occurs on November 23, when a judge who ruled that Harrisburg’s City Council wasn’t authorized to file the petition throws out the bankruptcy case. The judge questioned whether a divided Harrisburg City Council indeed had the authority to go over the mayor’s head and file for bankruptcy. In the end, the judge decided they didn’t. None too pleased with that turn of events, some members of the City Council is framing this city battleground as Main Street vs. Wall Street.

With the dismissal of the bankruptcy case, Corbett now had the green light to move ahead with the takeover and named David Unkovic, a lawyer for the state, and the Washington, DC law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge as receivers for the city of Harrisburg. The proposed state plan would force the city to sell parks and other assets and break union and vendor contracts. The City Council is not pleased and is digging in its heels and refusing to go along, preferring to raise income or sales taxes, which is unpopular with the voters.

Although the takeover of the capital by the state is unprecedented, it looked to be a fresh start for the city, a panacea of sorts for its residents . . . but not so fast.

In the last 10 days, the takeover of Harrisburg has faced a new challenge when three Harrisburg residents filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to throw out the takeover bill that allowed the state takeover of the city. The suit names Corbett and the man he nominated to be the receiver, David Unkovic.

Filed by a former mayoral candidate, a union leader and a Baptist minister, they call the takeover an unconstitutional violation of their rights and are asking for it to be stopped. The lawsuit claims that Senate Bill 1151 takes away citizens right to due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment.

As for the takeover process, last week David Unkovic was approved as receiver by a Commonwealth Court judge and he now has 30 days to develop and implement a fiscal recovery plan for the city. Unkovic could be in for a bumpy ride from the disgruntled City Council members — remember they are working with the “it’s us against the world” mindset.

The final chapter on the state takeover of its capital remains unwritten. What we do know, is we have a city renovation project that went awry, ending up costing far more than expected. Residents paying among the highest trash removal rates in the country, an incinerator that can’t generate enough money to pay the debt, elected city officials who cannot seem to agree on how to move forward and a lawsuit against the Governor to stop the takeover of the capital by the state. Amazing . . .

Here’s to wishing Harrisburg and its residents better times for 2012!

Help Save the Trees — Vine Day at Cool Valley Preserve this Saturday, December 10

December 8, 2011
5 Comments

Honeysuckle, choking a tree.

Save the Trees!

The Chester County Open Land Conservancy volunteers continue to wage their battle against the invasive vines that are strangling the trees in the Nature Preserves . . . and could use some help on Saturday.

Open Land Conservancy will once again be holding its series of winter “Vine Days” to continue our successful campaign against the invasive vegetation that limits development of the tree canopy layer in our Nature Preserves.

This is a great opportunity to get some fresh air, work with some of your neighbors and make a lasting impact on the Nature Preserves. Saturday, December 10, beginning at 9 AM is the Cool Valley Preserve ‘Vine Day’. Although the volunteers generally work 3-4 hours, any help that you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

Volunteers get out in the fresh air, take a mid-morning hot chocolate break and enjoy the companionship of like-minded neighbors. All that’s needed are protective clothing, gloves and, if you have them, tools such as loppers, pruners and hand saws to supplement OLC’s supply.

Volunteers are asked to meet in the Cool Valley Preserve entrance at 9 AM.

Any questions, contact Ray Clarke, 610-578-0358.

Directions to Cool Valley Preserve: Off Swedesford Road turn into Shadow Oak Drive. Follow to the end (circle). Turn left at circle one block to Cool Valley Road and turn right to Preserve entrance.

Preserving Open Space in our Community –

Help Save the Trees!

 

For further information on Open Land Conservancy, click here for their website.

Rt. 202: Northbound lanes shifting to Southbound side this weekend

December 7, 2011
Comments

Be careful driving this weekend on Route 202 – the 202 construction project through Tredyffrin is shifting the two northbound lanes to the southbound side.

I attended a Route 202 Project Update meeting given by TMACC (Transportation Management Association of Chester County) held at Penn State/Great Valley. Basically, an update for local corporate and hotel (and Bed & Breakfast) representatives in the area, the meeting was to inform on Stage 3 (final stage) of this section of the 202 project.

Starting Friday night (8 PM) and continuing through the weekend, the two lanes of northbound Rt. 202 will shift to the southbound side. The southbound traffic will remain in its current Stage 2 pattern. It is anticipated that the shifting of lanes will be completed prior to Monday morning rush hour.

With the traffic removed from the northbound lanes, the contractor will replace the existing pavement; excavate median area for construction of a new lane; excavate right shoulder for construction of collector-distributor lane; install drainage; erect sound barrier walls and rebuild the ramps at the PA 29/Swedesford Road interchange.

David Palmer, the Rt. 202 project manager, explained that the sound walls will not be constructed from concrete but rather will be ‘absorptive’ panels – the impression given was that this type of sound walls would greatly reduce the noise for the local homeowners. I asked the height of the walls as prior to this construction, the Swedesford Road section through my section of the township had walls that were only about 3 feet high. If I understood correctly, we should be getting 15-20 ft. high construction walls through this entire section of the 202 project.

In discussing the Stage 3 impacts, it was explained that PennDOT plans to maintain four lanes of traffic at most times during construction and especially during the peak morning and later afternoon drive times with occasional off-peak, overnight and weekend lane restrictions each way. Also we should expect occasional ramp detours and North Valley road will remain narrowed at the Rt. 202 overpass.

The project is on schedule and this final Stage 3 phase will be completed by December 2012. In Spring 2013, the next section of the 202 project will start (where this one ends) and will continue to the Rt. 30 Bypass. Expected completion date on the final section is December 2015.

In other updates from the meeting — It was also reported that things may be back on track for O’Neill’s Uptown Worthington project. Looks like O’Neill and Citizens Bank have reached some kind of an agreement and that Wegmans may finally have some new neighbors. Discussion that the next phase of the Worthington project is to include residential units and possibly movie theater.

Another update: Atwater property (Rt. 29 and Yellow Springs Road) home to the Allstate Insurance Company, is getting a new tenant; a pharmaceutical company from Chadds Ford is relocating to the property by the end of 2012 with 400 employees. Atwater filed a zoning application for a mixed-use development to include townhouses, single-family homes and some retail – the thought was they wanted to model it after the Uptown Worthington project.

2012 Township Budget and T/E School Board Updates

December 6, 2011
1 Comment

Today’s post includes notes from the Board of Supervisors and T/E School Board meetings held last night. Although a prior commitment prevented me from attending last night’s BOS and school board meeting, Ray and Carol Clarke attended the meetings and graciously forwarded their notes. I attended a TMACC (Transportation Management Association of Chester County) meeting and will provide a 202 project –Stage 3 update separately.

At the prior BOS meeting, the preliminary 2012 budget was presented which included a millage increase 6.9% for real estate taxes to cover the $500K deficit. The supervisors left that meeting with determination to review the budget and look for opportunities for further reductions and to take a hard look at expenditures and services before approving any tax increase.

The supervisors continued the budget discussion at last night’s meeting. In their review of the preliminary budget, the supervisors found some ways to decrease expenditures and as a result reduced the tax increase from the initial 6.9% to 3.5%.

The supervisors propose decreasing expenditures in several ways:

1) Reduction of professional fees by $49.7K

2) Use the Capital Fund to fund IT equipment – 67.5K (This changes the revenue source from the Operating Fund to Capital Fund)

3) Supervisors asked township manager to find $45K in reductions. (Not clear on how this will be accomplished; further discussion is required).

4) Defer the hiring of 2 full-time (currently open positions) in the Police Department until July – $85K savings

5) Associated savings in benefits due to #4 – $45K

To lower the tax increase to 3.5%, the supervisors are proposing a combination of decreased expenditures and the using fund balance reserves for the remaining budget shortfall. Based on the 2011 budget process and the severe cuts that were required, I am not sure where Mimi Gleason is going to find $45K in reductions for the 2012 budget. Reductions in the healthcare benefits could produce significant savings for the budget; but apparently due to contract negotiations may not be an option. If a reduction in benefits is off the table as a possible solution, it is not clear what remains that could be reduced.

The 2012 budget will have another final review at the next BOS meeting on December 19. If we want to feel better about our potential 3.5% tax increase, we need look no further than to our next-door neighbors. In Phoenixville, residents are facing a potential 19 percent tax increase to close their 2012 budget deficit. And remember, they pay an Earned Income Tax in Phoenixville!

The T/E School Board meeting was a very short meeting. With a 9-0 vote of confidence, Karen Cruickshank was elected to president and Betsy Fadem as vice president of the school board. Cruickshank will choose the committee chairs and members this week. There are significant Finance and Facilities Committee meetings planned for next week. With the loss of Kevin Mahoney on the school board, the School Board is going to be challenged with the Finance Committee.

In my review of the agenda for last night’s school board meeting, I was disturbed to read that the Public Information Committee would be abolished. Debbie Bookstaber’s presence on the school board had encouraged transparency and public information. Without her advocacy for transparency, it may be challenging for us to receive information during the contract negotiations.

Apparently, the board defended its actions to abolish the Public Information Committee last night, with the feeling that each school board committee should be responsible for their communications. Without the Public Information Committee holding the board to a high communications standard, it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers to play watchdog. The school board members agreed that if a future need required it, the Public Information Committee could be re-instituted. Why do I feel like we are going backwards with this decision instead of forward?

Now that Debbie Bookstaber is off the school board, maybe she will join the conversation on Community Matters. Her insight as a recent school board director could be extremely valuable in the upcoming teacher contract negotiations.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme