Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 7 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

Starting today for the next four days, is a daily question which was presented to the Tredyffrin Township supervisor candidates. All eight supervisor candidates responded and their responses will follow the question in alphabetical order according to last name. Here is the reminder of the candidates running for the Board of Supervisors – voters will select one district supervisor from the East, one district supervisor from the West and two At-Large supervisors.

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 1^st DISTRICT (EAST) CANDIDATES
Julie Gosse (D)
Raffi Terzian (R)

TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR AT-LARGE CANDIDATES
Mark Freed (D)
Sharon Humble (D)
Gina Mazzulla (R)
Liz Mercogliano (R)

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 3^rd DISTRICT (WEST) CANDIDATES
K. S. Bhaskar (D)
Peter DiLullo (R)

_________________________________________

Question #1: If you could change one thing in the Tredyffrin Township zoning code or township ordinances, what would it be and why?

K. S. Bhaskar Response:

I would change the regulations to reduce the maximum permissible housing density. While multi-family residential structures like apartment buildings are appropriate, and we want Tredyffrin to be a welcoming community to one and all, excessive housing density adversely affects our quality of life in ways such as exacerbating traffic (which in turn adversely impacts the timeliness of emergency services) and adding to overcrowding in our schools. In our transition from villages to suburbs, change is inevitable. But change must be managed rather than allowed to run roughshod over us.

Peter DiLullo Response:

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Board of Supervisors should have final approval of any land development plans. This responsibility should not be relegated to an appointed volunteer planning commission.

Mark Freed Response:

It is difficult to pick a single issue, as I am regularly considering changes to many provisions of the Township Code (e.g., sign requirements, assisted living facilities, development, stormwater, historic preservation). If required to pick just one, I would choose stormwater. We are in a period of sustained increased rainfall. These events have exposed gaps in stormwater management throughout the Township and the region. The solution to many of these problems are capital improvements, which the Township has and will continue to undertake. However, the Township is also evaluating ways that the ordinance can be improved to address these issues. This is why I supported the creation of a Citizens Stormwater Advisory Task Force to review the Township’s stormwater management requirements and to make recommendations on how to improve these requirements.

Julie Gosse Response:

The current zoning code is tilted toward growth over sustainability, and I am in favor of amending it to limit negative impact on our strained shared resources. A reasonable starting point is to address the construction of new assisted living facilities that would encroach on our residential neighborhoods. We can do this by: (1) removing assisted living facilities from C-1 zoning districts altogether or (2) only allowing them in specific C-1 areas (e.g., on a major arterial highway). In addition to changing the character of a neighborhood, assisted living facilities create increased call volume for our already-strained fire companies. Beyond adjusting our C-1 zoning, we could consider requiring conditional use approval for assisted living facilities, adding the additional step of review and approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Sharon Humble Response:

The first “thing” on my list for change is to revoke the Planning Commission’s final decision-making authority on development plans and requests for waivers and variances. On October 7, 2019, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Township Solicitor to review methods by which the Board of Supervisors may obtain final land development approval authority, which I fully support.

Tredyffrin has seen a surge of oversized development projects before the Planning Commission seeking waivers from the restrictions designed to protect the rest of us. Too often, the developers’ requests are granted, to the great detriment of the surrounding homeowners and the environment. Responsible development, however, fits within Township ordinances that exist to protect the Township’s infrastructure, property values, safety, and quality of life. Township residents are not willing to have their safety, quality of life, home property values, and regional environment stability sacrificed for the sake of a developer’s greater profit.

Gina Mazzulla Response:

I support efforts to return final approval authority for land development concerns to the Board of Supervisors. Zoning and land development concerns, I believe, have the broadest and deepest impact across the spectrum of services the township is responsible for, including emergency services, roads and traffic, stormwater, open space and population density, and of course, taxes – affecting both resident stakeholders and the physical infrastructure of the township.

As a Supervisor my duty is to represent the interests of, be a voice for, and be accountable to the residents and voters I serve, balanced with due consideration for the interests of the township as a whole entity. Recognizing the complexities and legalities of zoning and land development, I also support mandatory education for Supervisors, Planning Commission and Zoning Officer and Hearing Board through programs such as the Chester County Planning Commission’s Master Planning Program for (new) municipal officials.

Liz Mercogliano Response:

The most important zoning ordinance update should be in the area of the planning and development including storm water management. The Supervisors should take back the final decision role in the final approvals of building plans. The Supervisors are elected and must respond to the constituents. Currently, the township allows the planning commission, (a group of Supervisor appointed volunteers), the privilege of the final decisions on the development plans. I suggest the Supervisors take back the final approval. In addition, the supervisors should give the residents in the immediate community a stronger voice.

Our citizens should not have to attend Supervisor meetings begging for help. Our taxpayers should not have to scream, beg or read dissertations for the Supervisors to acknowledge their views. I plan to listen and help in any way I can in a polite civil manner. A simple response of thank you, I am glad you came to our meeting would suffice.

Raffi Terzian Response:

I am honored to serve as a Board member of the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust whose mission is to preserve and protect historic and cultural resources in our Township. The Board of Supervisors must enact a historic ordinance which is meaningful and which firmly recognizes the importance of these resources for the benefit of our community and ensures their preservation for future generations. Progress is being made with the creation of a draft ordinance, which is winding its way through the approval process, but this process must advance swiftly and with transparency. The recent controversy over the installation of a digital billboard, which many of us oppose, illustrates the need for open dialogue, community engagement and greater visibility in the creation, review and application of our Township ordinances.

Eight Candidates for Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors and Ten Candidates for T/E School Board – Where do they stand on important community issues? Know before you VOTE – Responses to Community Matters questions

October 21, 2019

17 Comments

In two weeks, local voters we will go to the polls to select four supervisors for Tredyffrin Township and five T/E School Board directors. People bring different backgrounds and qualifications to the job of supervisor and school board director and as voters; we need to make the right choices on Election Day.

To assist voters in the decision-making process, it is important for the public to know the candidates and where they stand on important community issues. To aid in the process, last Thursday I sent four questions to the eight supervisor candidates and four questions to the ten school board candidates. The questions were not shared in advance and all candidates received the questions at the same time. Completely voluntary, the eighteen candidates were given the following direction when responding:

Questions were chosen based on what I believe are important issues and included zoning/ordinance changes, fire and EMS funding, public accountability, fiscal responsibility and resident involvement. Candidates were invited to respond to the four questions with the following directions:

Your responses should NOT be a political campaign plug and no campaign websites are to be included. Your response (word doc format) should NOT exceed 150 words per questions and is due no later than Sunday, October 20. Your responses will not be edited and will be provided to the public via Community Matters.

Candidate participation was completely voluntary and all responses will appear on Community Matters in alphabetical order (by last name) beginning the week of October 21. I sincerely appreciate the candidates taking the time from their busy campaign schedules to respond; it looks like all supervisor and school board candidates are participating. On a personal note, I admit that the management of eighteen candidates and their individual responses to four questions has been challenging but believe that this is an important exercise!

The process for the candidate questions and their responses is as follows – starting tomorrow (Tuesday, Oct. 22) with the supervisor candidates, I will post one question daily on Community Matters with the eight candidate responses. Once the four supervisor questions and responses are posted in four days, I will post one question daily with responses from the ten school board candidates.

In preparation of the supervisor questions (starting on Tuesday, Oct. 22), here is a list of the candidates running for Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (listed in alphabetical order).

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 1^st DISTRICT (EAST) CANDIDATES
Julie Gosse (D) *
Raffi Terzian (R)

TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR AT-LARGE CANDIDATES
Mark Freed (D) *
Sharon Humble (D)
Gina Mazzulla (R)
Liz Mercogliano (R)

DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 3^rd DISTRICT (WEST) CANDIDATES
K. S. Bhaskar (D)
Peter DiLullo (R)

* Currently serving on the Board of Supervisors, Mark Freed is an incumbent seeking re-election. Julie Gosse was appointed as interim supervisor in August to fill the unexpired term of Paul Olson and is seeking election to a regular 4-year term.

Tredyffrin Township’s Zoning Hearing Board Rules on Digital Billboard Appeal by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising – Thursday, Oct. 24, 7 PM

October 20, 2019

1 Comment

The Tredyffrin Township Zoning Hearing Board will rule on the digital billboard issue on Thursday, October 24, 7 PM at Tredyffrin Township building.

Catalyst Outdoor Advertising first appeared at a Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting in August 2018 with their proposal to demolish the Clockworks Building and install two large 20 ft. digital billboards with a reflecting pool as the “welcome” to our 300-year old township.

For the last fourteen months, the public has remained committed in their opposition to ‘BAN the Digital Billboard’. Residents filled the seats of Keene Hall for three Zoning Hearing Board meetings and eloquently delivered their message of “Just Say No” to a digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Avenue in Paoli. My words at the last Zoning Hearing Board meeting were simple, “We are not a community divided” – the community has stood in complete solidarity in its opposition. We do not want a digital billboard. Period.

The final decision rests with the Zoning Hearing Board – the township heard the public and denied the application for the digital billboard and it’s now up to the ZHB to uphold and support. As I understand it, there are two ways this can go on Thursday – either the ZHB upholds Tredyffrin Township’s previous denial of the Catalyst application for a digital billboard and rules against their appeal or … the ZHB rules in favor of Catalyst on their appeal.

If Catalyst loses its appeal on Thursday, they have the right to appeal the decision to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. If the ZHB rules in favor of Catalyst, the township has the right to appeal the decision.

The digital billboard decision will be first up at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting – 7 PM on Thursday. Residents who sought party status in the digital billboard matter will also learn whether or not it was granted.

The proposed digital billboard is probably one of the most important issues to face our community in recent years – please plan to join me on Thursday at 7 PM, Tredyffrin Township building for the Zoning Hearing Board decision.

No Planning Commission Approval for $40 Million Conestoga High School Expansion Project … Proposed Parking Lot Major Stumbling Block … Residents Voice Objections

October 18, 2019

12 Comments

I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night specifically for high school expansion plan — T/E School District was seeking preliminary/final land development approval for the project. The District tried to sell their proposed high school expansion plan, which includes the removal of 200 trees from a wooded lot for a 128 space parking lot on Irish Road. The District came armed with their experts – consultant, architect, stormwater, traffic, attorney and the business manager Art McDonnell.

The neighbors to the proposed project did their homework were organized and prepared to battle back – including two transportation engineers from the neighborhood! The majority of the residents supported the high school expansion project itself; it was the proposed parking lot that was their focus – and the associated stormwater, traffic, safety, environmental, etc. issues. Once again, I was impressed by our community members!

Throughout the to and fro of the three hours of debate, certain facts became clear – (1) the lack of notification to the neighbors of meetings, specifically the Zoning Hearing Board meeting; (2) unclear information about the retaining wall, no specifics and height range of 3 ft. to 10 ft.; (3) a debate of actual need/use of parking lot, whether for staff or students; (4) opposing traffic study information between District and residents; and (5) outdated CHS expansion plans on District website. Many residents complained bitterly that the District and School Board had rushed to approve the expansion plan without adequate input from the community.

I stayed until 10 PM but the discussion continued until 11 PM. I have since learned that the Planning Commission did NOT grant preliminary/final land development approval on the project; several of the planning commissioners voicing personal concern about the parking lot, associated issues and unanswered questions. As I understand it the upshot was that the District needed to re-design the parking lot, specifically reducing the number of parking spaces and perhaps moving the lot closer to the school – this would lessen the number of trees to be removed.

The change to the number of parking spaces will require the District to go back to the Zoning Hearing Board (Wednesday, Nov. 20) and back to the Planning Commission (Thursday, Nov. 21). For those who attended the Planning Commission last night, I encourage you to add to the commentary.

Although the vast majority of residents in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting support the high school expansion project (just not the parking lot), as I mentioned there are some in the community who feel that proposed plan was push through too quickly and without sufficient community input.

One community member who feels the value (and associated costs) of the high school project needs scrutiny is Neal Colligan, a resident and commercial real estate expert. Neal attended the District’s Facility meeting earlier this week and offers the following op-ed:

I was at the Facilities Committee the other night and wanted to share some of my thoughts on the proposed budget for the High School expansion renovation. As a “real estate” guy; I’m trying to put this into the context of commercial real estate costs/values. We’re lucky to have something to compare this to in the local community as the Woodlynde School is doing a similar expansion at this time and they’ve shared some information on their website. Let’s look at these two projects:

Woodlynde – Their expansion project will deliver: a new glass-enclosed atrium; a dining hall/program/performance space (168 people expandable to 256); 6 classrooms; a music studio; an emerging technology space; 4 new flex offices; 3 learning centers; a faculty lounge and 70 new parking spots with re-designed traffic flows. That’s 17 new spaces for learning and that project is underway today. Total costs $10.8 MM.

Conestoga – This expansion includes a glass-enclosed atrium; 11 new classrooms; 3 Special Education classrooms; 4 science labs; 1 FCS room; 1 art room; 7 flex rooms and 128 parking spaces. That’s 27 new learning spaces. The cost for this project is $39.6 MM.

While never truly “Apples to Apples”-this is pretty close as both projects are being built in Tredyffrin on land already owned by the institution. To be fair in comparison, the Conestoga project includes $6 MM in upgrades to other parts of the High School so we should look at total costs of $33.6 MM. I don’t know how many square feet Woodlynde is adding so I can’t really compare on a SF basis. We can compare in other ways. Per learning space: Woodlynde – $635,294/space; Conestoga – $1,244,444/space. On an absolute cost basis, the Conestoga project is 3X the cost of the Woodlynde project. Conestoga will end up with 1.6 X new learning spaces and 1.8 X the number of parking spaces.

The question is: are we getting VALUE? At a cost of $33.6 MM for 64,446 SF of new space: the per SF cost is $521/SF. This is an eye-catching number in commercial real estate. A project at 7 Tower Bridge was recently announced in Conshohocken. At $112 MM for 260,000 SF of Class A office or $431/SF- this will be one of (if not THE) most expensive projects in the Philadelphia suburbs ever. But, there’s good reason, the largest Philadelphia investment bank has agreed to lease half of the building at, likely, the highest rental rate in the region. That’s economics driving the cost of the project.

What’s driving the costs of the Conestoga High School project and IS this the right amount to spend? It’s easy to get numb to the numbers … $30 million, $35 million, $40 million … they’re just numbers BUT they’re BIG numbers. Who’s in charge of being the governor on these costs? The architect/engineer is normally paid on a percentage of total cost … they’re not the governor. The Administration? What’s their responsibility to control costs; they want NICE stuff? The Board? Their conversations have focused on needs and design and additions to the plan. So … who’s looking at the all-in costs? Who’s comparing this to what “Real Estate” should cost?

Final Land Development Approval Sought at Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, Oct. 17 for High School Expansion Plan + Proposed Parking Lot on Irish Road — Will Stormwater Runoff be Adequately Managed for the Neighborhood?

October 14, 2019

32 Comments

On the Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission agenda for Thursday, Oct. 17, 7 PM is the preliminary/final land development application for the Conestoga High School expansion. The proposal expands the existing high school (216,000 sq. ft.) with a two story addition (approx. 40,500 sq. ft.)

For those that live in the area of the high school, this is an important meeting to attend — as another component of the T/E School District’s expansion plan includes a new parking lot (with 128 spaces) on Irish Road plus a bus pull-off.

We know that rainwater does not percolate into impervious surfaces but runs off instead. The proposed parking lot requires the removal of many trees from its wooded lot. Imperious surface is the primary contributor to stormwater runoff and is a major contributor to flooding … what stormwater impact can neighbors expect as a result of the proposed parking lot? Will the stormwater runoff from the parking lot be adequately managed? And going forward, who has oversight of the stormwater situation once the parking lot is completed – the school district or the township?

Residents in the high school area (particularly Irish Road, Lizbeth Lane and Oak Lane) have suffered with major stormwater and flooding issues for years – if you know the area, many homes in the neighborhood sit downhill from the proposed high school expansion project and parking lot. Such a large land development project, which includes the removal of many trees, is certain to impact a community already impacted by stormwater runoff problems and stormwater issues.

Residents are encouraged to attend the Planning Commission and make their concerns known. Mitigating and preventing flooding and erosion of their properties must include stormwater runoff as a critical part of the approval of the high school expansion project, particularly the parking lot component. Neighbors cannot afford further damage and possible devaluation of property as a result of severe stormwater runoff issues.

In addition to increased stormwater runoff issues related to the proposed parking lot on Irish Road – residents need to bring their safety, traffic, lighting, etc. concerns to the Planning Commission meeting. The proposed expansion plan and parking lot needs to be fully vetted by the planning commissioners before granting final land development approval.

T/E School District goes from a $1.5 Million Deficit to having a $4 Million Surplus Four Months Later – A $5.5 Million Discrepancy! How is this Possible Mr. Business Manager?

October 10, 2019

54 Comments

How is it possible that in June, the TESD Business Manager claimed a projected deficit of $1.5 million for the 2018-19 year and then based on that, the taxpayers received a 3.91% tax increase for 2019-20? Then fast forward less than four months later and this same Business Manager tells the school board at the Finance Committee meeting this week that not only did the District not have a deficit for the 2018-19 year but instead it magically had a $4 million surplus — A $5.5 Million discrepancy! How is this possible?

In the T/E School District, residents have faced annual tax increases for the last fifteen years. If you recall, in mid-December 2018, the District first presented the 2019-20 budget with a proposed 6.1% tax increase and that 6.1% increase hung over taxpayers heads for six months! Finally in June the proposed tax increase was lowered and the school board approved a 3.91% increase. And with the 3.91% tax increase, our school district received a special distinction … we had the second highest tax increase in the Philly region!

Do you fully understand what happened? To recap … from December 2018 to June 2019, taxpayers were faced with a 6.1% tax increase. In June 2019, taxpayers ended up with 3.91% tax increase due to a projected deficit of $1.5 million. Now four months later, the taxpayers are told that the District didn’t end up with a deficit after all. Nope, actually the 2018-19 year ended with a $4 million surplus. Again, I ask why is there a $5.5 million discrepancy and and why did taxpayers receive a 3.91% tax increase?

I don’t know about you, but as a taxpayer I find the “fuzzy math” approach wholly unacceptable! And let’s not forget, the Business Manager received a new 5-year contract starting July 1, 2019 with a base salary of $210K plus annual raises and bonuses. Oh, and he is also the responsible party for the $1.2 million accounting error from the year before; which to date remains unresolved (although the Board voted to have the Business Manager make the correction months ago). As a top-notch school district, don’t the taxpayers of T/E School District deserve better?

Although I did not attend the Finance Committee meeting, I watched the video (the District does not tape Finance Committee meetings but fortunately residents now do!) Neal Colligan did attend the meeting and provides the following commentary.

It appears to me that taxpayers should have received ZERO tax increase. And somehow the District’s update of $4 million “found money” and the $5.5 million discrepancy was not worthy of making it on to the Financial Committee agenda. School board, where is your outrage?

From Neal Colligan —

The Finance Committee meeting started with a quick review of minutes and a presentation of year-to-date financials. The committee received an update on Special Education costs. Seemed to be on track but this report was not posted in the Agenda so I can’t comment on the details (for fairness, the report should make the Agenda for future meetings).

The next section of the meeting was the most eye-opening. Couched under the item Capital Planning- the Board was informed that their 2018-19 projected deficit (last year) of $1.5 MM is now a $4 MM SURPLUS.

It was difficult to follow the Business Manager’s explanation of the changes (and I watched the video twice – thanks Doug Anestad and BUILD T/E). Seems to be greater revenues of $1.6 MM-increased interest earned, State revenue increase, transportation subsidy received and increased State funding for Special Ed ($500,000). On the expense side another $1.6 MM in savings in non-instructional items under the categories of supplies and repairs and a savings in Special Education purchased services of $760,000. I know this doesn’t add up to a $5.5 MM swing but the details were not complete and not included on the Agenda items.

The discussion was centered on “what to do with this new-found surplus” but certain Board members (Murphy and Sweeney particularly) seemed surprised (as was the audience) at the BIG swing from deficit to surplus in the just completed (June 20, 2019) fiscal year. Mr. Sweeney correctly noted that this knowledge in real-time would have certainly influenced his vote on the last tax increase (3.91%).

Some of the discussion on what to do with this money and “below-the-line/above-the-line” differences, transfers to other funds (Capital), and the relation of the surplus to authorized spending was a bit painful to watch … but I’m speaking as an accountant so I know these are easier concepts for me. This decision will be tabled for another meeting but, IMHO, the Board needs to quickly become familiar with the process here as it relates to what they can do with their surplus after the year is completed. They can be forgiven as they are not “financial” people but they’ll have to get up to speed fast on the rules. Not a single Board member (although Sweeney touched on this) considered the taxpayer in this discussion (i.e.: could surplus be used to offset future tax increases).

The final part of the meeting briefly touched on the Committee’s goals going forward. Mr. Sweeney had suggested changes to the budget process as well as additional detail be required from the Administration to help the Committee understand the District finances. This was also tabled for a future meeting. Mr. Dorsey supported the discussion of changes in the Board/Finance Committee process and the importance of this initiative. Comments from the audience included: getting real-time financial numbers from the Administration; on-going busing issues and suggesting a format for review of Budget variances over a longer historical time frame.

Thank you Neal! Here’s a link to the Finance Committee video.

Make sure to watch the video to the end for the resident comments. Sadly, some District parents are still experiencing transportation issues – young children sitting on the buses for a long time, including on school grounds. Parents continue to ask the District for a tracking app (for buses) which “may” happen at the December Finance Committee meeting.

The “kick the can” mentality is allowed to continue with no sense of urgency. Where is the accountability and demand to fix the busing problems … right, the Transportation Director reports to the Business Manager. Why is it that so many issues in this school district lead directly the Business Manager (and then sadly, HE is allowed to prioritize).

Trust’s 15th Annual Historic House Tour Raises $35K for Historic Preservation!

October 2, 2019

Comments

On behalf of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, I am thrilled to announce that our 15th Annual Historic House Tour this past Saturday raised $35,000 for historic preservation and the completion of the Jones Log Barn – Living History Center.

There are many people to thank but first we thank the owners of the “Stars” of the tour, the wonderful historic homes in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships featured on the tour — “Blackburn Farm”, “Deepdale Farm”, “Brook Wood”, “Sarah Fry House”, “Brookside” and St. John’s Presbyterian Church and Carriage House.

A wonderful day with perfect weather (for those that are counting, that’s fifteen straight years!), I also thank the Trust Board of Directors, who were assigned to the houses and had oversight of the volunteers (all of who are so appreciated!). Speaking of volunteers, I’m proud to say that we had 28 student volunteers from Conestoga High, many whom are seniors and members of the National Honor Society. There were two additional students who volunteered their musical talent (piano and violin) at the library for house tour ticket pick-up. PA State Representative Melissa Shusterman (D-157) presented the Trust with a House citation in honor of our 15th Annual Historic House Tour.

And finally, I thank the generous sponsors of our annual historic house tour — we applaud their support of historic preservation in the community and them for their financial contribution. Please review the following list of sponsors and thank them when you see them! Without the sponsors, the volunteers and the wonderful historic homeowners, the historic house tour would not be possible — much thanks to all of you!

Pattye Benson
Chair, 15th Annual Historic House Tour
President, Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust

15th Annual Historic House Tour – Tomorrow! Saturday, Sept. 28, 12 PM – 5 PM Tickets Available!

September 27, 2019

3 Comments

Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust’s 15th Annual Historic House Tour is tomorrow Saturday, Sept. 28, 12 Noon – 5 PM. It looks like the weather gods will allow for another perfect house tour day — if so, it will be fifteen straight years! Houses located in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships.

The house tour is always held the last Saturday of September and this year the Paoli Blues Fest moved its event up a week so it too is tomorrow! But good news folks — you can do both, go on the house tour first and then take in the last hour of the Blues Fest from 5-6 PM. Having served as one of the three organizers and board member for the Blues Fest, we saved the best for last — grand finale during the last hour.

Tickets for the house tour available online at www.tredyffrinhistory.org . All ticket sales support historic preservation and help complete the Jones Log Barn – Living History Center at Duportail. Hope to see you tomorrow!

And here’s a photo of the manor house at Blackburn Farm, one of the featured stops on the 15th Annual Historic House tour!

The Wheels on the Bus … are Late!

August 28, 2019

79 Comments

We all understand that it’s the first week of school and that there are bound to be glitches. But some of the stories I am hearing from parents about the bus situation in T/E are unacceptable and scary!

Part of the problem with transportation issues may have to do with the changes in school start times. Back in April the school board approved the change in start times as a result of adolescent sleep needs. The changes are as follows:

High School: 7:50 AM – 2:50 PM (previously 7:20 AM – 2:20 PM)
Middle Schools: 8:27 AM – 3:10 PM (previously 7:50 AM – 2:33 PM) Elementary Schools: 9:10 AM – 3:45 PM (previously 8:45 AM – 3:20 PM)

For some working parents, the later start times created schedule issues but they had four months to make necessary adjustments. The transportation department of the District also had four months’ notice to adequately adjust the bus schedules and routes as needed. Not sure exactly what happened during the summer months but there seems a huge disconnect between the Krapf Bus Company and its drivers, the District’s administration and transportation department and the parents and their children.

I want to be clear that no parent who contacted me was expecting the system to work perfectly the first week but they sure deserved better than what some received!

Unsettling information about the District’s bus transportation includes late buses, repeated changes in schedules (one mother reported three schedule changes occurred last week), poor or non-existent communication from the transportation department and/or administration, unanswered phone calls and emails. Where is the accountability to the District’s parents?

As an example, here’s one disturbing story – bus #32 in the Glenhardie area was scheduled to pick children up at Valley Forge Elementary School at 3:45 PM. For those that don’t know, VFES is located on Walker Road, extremely close to the homes of the students. The VFES students on bus #32 did not arrive home until 6 PM, after spending hours on the bus!

One of the parents of children on bus #32 reported that the driver was lost in the neighborhood and that the older children on the bus were attempting to direct the driver – with the younger children upset and crying. It was reported that the driver actually became stressed herself and told the children that she was lost and didn’t know where she was going. Eventually the bus driver made her way back to Valley Forge Middle School with the children – yep, took the kids to the middle school! The children sat on the bus without air conditioning while they waited for a Kraft Bus Company ‘trainer’ to arrive and transport the children home. Isn’t there a dry run of bus routes before school starts – this should not be an “on the job training” position!

With safety a high priority in schools (remember we have all our schools fenced in!) one can only imagine how distraught the parents and children became as the hours dragged on. But the worse part – the District apparently invested in a new software system, TE All-Call, which was to notify the parents of bus delays. The parents received NO notification from All-Call and NO notification from the District. Parents had no idea where their children were for hours! The problems with #32 route continue with the driver picking up students at incorrect stops, late arrivals, etc. Parents described feelings of disappointment towards the lack of communication regarding when their children would be home – there has been no follow-up apology or explanation from the District.

I want to be clear, the problems with bus #32 and its driver is not an isolated transportation situation in the school district this week. I had another parent mention that none of the blinking bus caution signs were turned on in the District. This becomes important when children who walk to schools are crossing busy roads and drivers need notification that schools are open. It was also reported that the Krapf driver of bus #29 at New Eagle Elementary School had similar problems as bus #32 driver with getting the children home late due to confusion with the bus route.

At Monday’s school board meeting, a parent from Paoli commented that their bus stop location had changed and now requires the children to stand in a busy road to wait for the bus. She reported having contacted the District’s transportation department but there was no response.

Again – we all get that this is the first week of school but some of these reports were avoidable! Why do Krapf bus drivers not know their routes? Why isn’t the TE All-Call system notifying the parents of bus delays? Why are the blinking school lights not turned on? And why isn’t the school district responding and/or communicating to the parents?

Partisan Vitriol over Tredyffrin Interim Supervisor Appointment – Local Politics Should Set a Better Example

August 20, 2019

29 Comments

For many years I have attended Tredyffrin Township supervisor meetings and for the most part, they have been relatively congenial. Sadly, last night the behavior of some does not represent the community that I know and that I love.

It was painful to sit in the audience and watch the partisan battle waged over who should fill the District 1 (East) vacancy left by the resignation of long-serving Republican supervisor Paul Olson. The interim appointed supervisor serves 4-1/2 months, until the end of 2019.

Four qualified residents applied for the interim supervisor seat – Julie Gosse (D), Raffi Terzian (R), Judy DiFilippo (R) and Bryan Humbarger (R). Democrat Gosse and Republican Raffi are the endorsed candidates for the District 1 (East) and will appear on the November ballot. All four candidates were interviewed by the supervisor personnel committee (Murph Wysocki (D), Kevin O’Nell (D) and Heather Greenberg (R)) in a public meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Board of Supervisors currently holds a Democrat majority that would not change with the selection of a Republican interim supervisor.

It was obvious from the moment that we arrived, that the results of the interim supervisor appointment were known before the vote was taken. With a Democrat majority board, of course the vote count would go to the D candidate. And conversely, if the Board of Supervisors was in the hands of the Republicans, undoubtedly the vote would go to an R candidate. Therefore the selection of Democrat candidate Julie Gosse for the District 1 (East) interim supervisor seat was assumed.

As an Independent (and a realist) – I was actually OK with the knowledge that the selection process had already happened before the meeting started – that’s politics. What was not OK was what happened next. From the moment that the chair of the Board of Supervisors Murph Wysocki made the motion to appoint Julie Gosse as interim supervisor the meeting quickly spiraled into a political battle.

It would be impossible for me to explain the partisan vitriol and the back and forth. Looking around the room, it was obvious that other residents had the same uncomfortable feeling watching as myself. Our community deserves better and our elected officials should be held to a higher standard.

America’s national political scene is rife with polarization and dysfunction but I naively thought that here in Tredyffrin Township we all get along. As the Republicans and Democrats battle over national concerns, guess I believed that at the local level we are all neighbors and friends first and political party second. After witnessing the partisan attacks at last night’s meeting that view is forever changed. Candidates should be evaluated on more than the D or the R after their name. Local politics should set a better example.

I encourage everyone to watch the video of the supervisor meeting and draw your own conclusion. Here’s the link and the interim supervisor appointment begins at timestamp 46.03.

https://tredyffrin.viebit.com/player.php?hash=6sWR0GtJz5q0#

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters