Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 71 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

All eyes are on Harrisburg as the clock ticks down to the June 30 state budget deadline. Some say that to reach next week’s deadline would require a final budget in place by the end of today. At this point, Gov. Corbett appears intent on meeting the June 30 deadline . . . that by itself will mark a change from the past administration. I don’t recall if Ed Rendell’s budget was late all eight years of his administration but certainly most years.

There are some hurdles for Corbett’s budget before it is finalized. Some sticking points include whether the $300 million in Tobacco Settlement Fund revenue remains in the general fund as Corbett proposed in his preliminary budget. In the past, the tobacco fund revenue was not included in the general fund but helped fund social and welfare programs. There was a claim in March by Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Jack Wagner that over the past few years, over a $1 billion has quietly diverted from the Tobacco Settlement Fund to the general fund to help balance the state’s budget. You know the saying, ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’.

If the $300 million revenue from the Tobacco Settlement Fund were to come out of the general fund, it is possible that some of the spending cuts to basic and higher education and welfare programs could be restored. If you recall, Corbett’s preliminary budget announcement back in March indicated excess tax revenue of $78 million but to date, he has refused to increase spending. The state tax revenue in March and April of this year was higher than expected so it would seem to suggest that Corbett could afford to restore some of the education and welfare spending cuts.

Will Corbett’s final budget package include a Marcellus shale impact fee? My guess . . . highly unlikely. But the real question is why is the state not charging an extraction tax or impact fee to the drilling companies? It defies logic; I absolutely do not understand why the opposition to charging the companies– especially given the current and potential future damage to the environment and roads caused by the gas drilling.

I certainly do not claim to be any political guru; but when you look around this country and see that every other state is charging some form of a drilling tax, impact fee, or whatever you want to call it; it does beg the question, why doesn’t Pennsylvania? Is the answer so that Corbett can stand on his campaign promise of no new tax increase? Is the administration’s reluctance to impose a Marcellus shale fee have anything to do with campaign financing support? I wonder how much revenue the state has already lost and will continue to lose by not imposing a Marcellus shale impact fee.

As school districts across the state are challenged to balance their own budgets and taxpayers face property tax increases – again I have to ask, why not tax the Marcellus shale drilling companies.

What’s the meaning of ‘Good Government’? Does it Mean Something Different in Tredyffrin?

June 21, 2011

30 Comments

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the only legitimate object of good government.”

~ Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809

According to Wikipedia, “Good Government is a normative description of how government is supposed to be constituted.” Last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting left me shaking my head and wondering about ‘good government’ in Tredyffrin. Wanting to believe in our elected officials and hoping that their decisions are in the best interest of our community, there were times during the meeting that I questioned the supervisors intentions.

The Board of Supervisors decided to delay the public hearing on the sidewalk ordinance for another month. Why? Eighteen months ago, dark clouds hung over this township as the St. Davids Golf Club land development agreement with Tredyffrin was put ‘on hold’ pending the results of a special sidewalk subcommittee. Township officials came under public scrutiny . . . with the newspaper headlines questioning the intentions of the BAWG report and the motives of some supervisors. It was a particularly dark time in our local history.

The land development contract between St. Davids Golf Club and the township is 6 years old. Four times representatives from the country club appeared before the township’s Planning Commission seeking relief from constructing the required walkway – and each time the planning commissioners choose to deny their request and uphold the terms of the land development contract.

After a yearlong special sidewalk subcommittee process, their report included sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. The supervisors voted to accept the sidewalk subcommittee report and instructed the planning commissioners to draft an amendment to the sidewalk ordinance which included an ‘in lieu of’ sidewalk fund. The Planning Commission members complied with the request and presented the draft ordinance, which was scheduled for public hearing last night. The supervisors decided to cancel that public hearing on the sidewalk ordinance and move it to the July meeting. Why?

We learned last night at the Board of Supervisors meeting that rather than honoring their vote of a few months ago to leave the land development authority in the hands of the Planning Commission, a new township land development process was presented. As discussed last night, the supervisors will now review the multiple phases of a land development plan, rather than simply the end product. Although it was suggested that the supervisors would only review the ‘larger’ projects or plans that required legislative authority, aside from the additional time and cost to developers for an additional review process, I could not help but think that this was just another way to once again delay the St. Davids walkway discussion.

Why is every decision related to the sidewalk ordinance amendment predicated on the best interests of this private country club?

A June township public hearing for the sidewalk ordinance is scheduled and advertised at a cost to taxpayers and then that hearing is cancelled, and rescheduled at additional cost. Why?

The supervisors state that they need more time to review the sidewalk ordinance. Why? So as to have more time to come up with additional ways not to uphold the contract with St. Davids Golf Club. Why don’t the supervisors just state that they have no intention of enforcing the land development contract with St. Davids? Wouldn’t that be more honest?

I have said repeatedly, this issue is not about sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. This is about a signed land development contract with the township; and the reasons why a wealthy country club isn’t required to comply with the conditions of the contract. I would bet if the township land development contract was with a private individual or another developer – they would be forced to comply with the conditions of the contract. Six years – and the country club continues to get a pass . . . why?

Is this ‘Good Government’ in Tredyffrin Township?

What Does the EIT Tax Study Group and Sidewalks at St. Davids Have in Common?

June 20, 2011

6 Comments

Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting is tonight, 7:30 PM at the township building. The T/E School Board’s Finance Committee meeting is also tonight, 7:30 PM at the school administration building. Looking at the agendas for both meetings, there are topics of interest.

According to the agenda for the Finance Committee meeting, the nine members of the EIT Tax Study Group are to be named at tonight’s meeting. There were at least 150 applications received from residents by the June 15 deadline. The selection criteria for members of the tax study group was agreed upon by school board members attending last week’s Public Information committee meeting. It is the intention of the school board that those residents chosen to serve on the tax study group will represent a cross-section of Easttown and Tredyffrin residents.

In addition to the EIT Tax Study Group on tonight’s agenda, I noted with interested that the Finance Committee will present the custodial outsourcing bid results. It is understood that the recently passed 2011-12 school budget includes continued custodial service provided by the non-instructional union, TENIG. For public information, it is important that the school district release the results of the custodial outsourcing bid process. Going forward, it may not be economically possible for TESD to continue to retain TENIG for custodial services and the bid results will offer a starting point for future contract considerations. I am glad that the school board decided to release the outsourcing bid results.

The long-awaited public hearing on the proposed sidewalk amendment and sidewalk fund ordinance was scheduled for tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting. The homepage of the township’s website still lists the sidewalk public hearing; however, the public hearing is off tonight’s agenda and has been postponed until July 18. I am not sure why the public hearing has been postponed . . . the 2010 sidewalk subcommittee presented their results to the supervisors several months ago, the planning commissioners have completed their proposed sidewalk ordinance, and the supervisors have received the Planning Commission’s sidewalk ordinance recommendations. So why postpone the public hearing?

Any discussion of sidewalks in Tredyffrin brings up the elephant in the room . . . and that would be the sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club (actually it’s not a sidewalk, but a walkway!). How many years ago was the original land development agreement signed between Tredyffrin Township and St. Davids signed? Answer: 6 years; the agreement was signed in 2005. How many times did St. Davids Golf Club go the Planning Commission seeking relief from building the sidewalks and how many times was their request denied? I think the answer is 4 requests and 4 times denied.

In December 2009, the Board of Supervisors voted to name a yearlong sidewalk subcommittee to review the sidewalks, trails and paths throughout the township and to make recommendations for where they should be in the township. After a year of meetings, the subcommittee presented their report earlier this year; and the sidewalk at St. Davids Golf Club was included on their list. Next, the supervisors instructed the planning commissioners to review the sidewalk ordinance and make a recommendation for an amendment to include a ‘Sidewalk Fund.’ The Planning Commission complied – the work is now completed and their recommended ordinance amendment now rests with the supervisors.

This takes us down ‘Memory Lane’ but brings us back to the starting point, which is where do we stand on the sidewalk at St. Davids Golf Club? To be clear, the existing land development agreement between the township and St. Davids is separate and apart from any proposed township sidewalk amendment ordinance. For the last eighteen months, the St. Davids sidewalk has remained an open issue and I believe that the time has come for the township to enforce their land development agreement with St. Davids.

Here’s hoping that the Board of Supervisors agree and that the St. Davids sidewalk issue can be put to rest, once and for all . . . at tonight’s meeting. The township’s elected officials need to enforce the 6-year old land development agreement with St. Davids and require the construction of the walkway.

Father’s Day. . . Times have changed and so has Fatherhood

June 19, 2011

3 Comments

Times have certainly changed and so has Fatherhood. Nervous fathers-to-be used to pace the floor, waiting for the nurse to open the door and say: “Congratulations, it’s a girl! Or it’s a boy.”

In the old black-and-white movies, there wasn’t much discussion about the nine months of pregnancy or the intensity of the mother-to-be’s labor leading to the baby’s birth — just absolute astonishment from the young guy when all of a sudden he hears those words for the first time, that he’s a Dad. In the old movies, the new dad hands out cigars to all those in the waiting room and all is well with the world.

Look at how things have changed. Many fathers-to-be choose to be in part of the entire baby process, proudly proclaiming the news, “We’re having a baby”, with a real emphasis on the word ‘we’. Often times, the dads-to-be attend coaching classes for the birth and are present for all the doctor visits leading up to the big day. Not only do they plan to be in the delivery room, they are active participants. We see dads-to-be capture the entire birth on their video cameras, digital cameras or cell phones (sometimes much to the chagrin of the moms-to-be). Photos of the new baby are electronically transmitted to family and friends all over the world. Entries of the newest member of the family seemingly appear instantaneously on Facebook and other social media outlets.

Fatherhood has changed. The modern-day Dad has evolved from the sometimes-absent traditional married breadwinner and disciplinarian in the family. Now he can be single or married; working outside the home or a stay-at home dad; gay or straight, an adoptive or a step-parent. But children, no matter how old, remember riding on their father’s shoulders and dancing on his toes. Dads remember those things too, but what really stands out are the unexpected rewards of parenthood.

The easygoing Dad with the unstructured fun . . . giving kids enough freedom to learn life’s lessons. Remember your dad letting you fall of your bike so you could learn how to make sure it doesn’t happen again? Like many, my dad was more apt to let us kids be adventuresome and just be kids. He would let us take a fall so that the next time we got into a situation, we would be able to work it out ourselves. Dad would let us kids explore, where mom was more prone to say no, no, no. He knew how to have fun and he shared it with his kids.

Dad can be the love in our lives that holds our hand as we take our first steps, and when we’re older, that holds our nervous arm as we walk down the aisle. When our daughter was born, my husband was standing in the operating room as the doctor did an emergency Caesarean section. I couldn’t see past the tenting of white cloth rising above my chest. My husband kept giving me reassuring nods, turning away only long enough to ask a nurse if this was normal. By the time I saw the baby, she was pink and wiggly. Days later, I marveled at the sheer terror my husband faced in the operating room, and did so without flinching. So much for the black-and-white movie image of the inept man who keels over as he hands the nurse a cigar in the earlier days.

Like I said, fatherhood has changed. There are the modern, liberated men who consider parenting a top-tier job and share all aspects of child-rearing. That was my husband’s approach, and it’s familiar to many dads who will be given presents of neckties and after-shave today. These modern dads change diapers, get up in the middle of the night for the 2 AM feedings and let a 4-year-old win at hide-and-seek.

As our daughter grew, so did her love for her dad and his for her. Now at 27 and married, she still calls him for all her computer problems, her car issues, or just to talk. As a young physician, those telephone calls with dad are shorter in length and not as frequent, but the calls remain just as important, especially to her dad.

I speak from experience when I say the tag-team approach to raising a child really comes in handy – whether you are hosting a 1-year-old’s birthday party or planning her dream wedding. Together, my husband and I did better than either of us would have done on our own. So, today on Father’s Day, I have a message for my husband . . . a simple thank you. I couldn’t have done without you.

To all the Dads, enjoy your special day and remember that you make a difference in your child’s life each and every day!

100 Birthday Candles for Paoli Troop 1 . . . Public Invited to Celebrate with Paoli Boy Scouts on Saturday, June 18

June 17, 2011

Comments

One of the oldest Boy Scout troops in the country, Paoli Troop 1, www.paoli1.org is marking their first 100 years of service with a weekend of celebration.

On Saturday, June 18, the public is invited to join local Paoli Troop 1 Boy Scouts and alumni from the area and across the country at Paoli Troop 1 headquarters, a beautiful 20-acre wooded site at 1038 Radnor Road, Wayne.

Join the spectators in the bleachers, Saturday, 10 AM – 12 Noon for a spirited display of scout relays and competitions. Watch as the scouts test their skills from knot-tying and Morse Code signaling to tower building, camp building and fire starting. The Paoli Troop 1 scouts will compete in the Full Field Competition on the Troop’s parade field, an annual tradition dating to the earliest days of the troop.

Saturday marks the special celebration of Paoli Troop 1’s century of history . . . men ranging in age from 17 to 97 will rekindle memories of growing and serving with childhood friends in the scout patrols of Paoli Troop 1.

Congratulations Paoli Troop 1; and here’s to your second 100 years!

Toll Road Privatization – Is this the Answer to State’s Infrastructure Problems?

June 16, 2011

2 Comments

Huffington Post today contained a timely article on the privatization of highways and their tolling, Toll Road Privatization: As Ohio Considers It, Indiana Serves As Cautionary Tale.

The article discusses that state’s across the country are looking at privatizing highways as a way to finance necessary infrastructure repairs. One interesting tolling concept discussed would privatize Interstate 95 and the Capital Beltway around my hometown, Washington, DC. Partnering with private investors using an 80-year lease, the plan would develop a ‘HOT’ (high occupancy toll) lanes. Here’s way the plan would work – if you are a commuter with 3 people in a car you won’t have to pay a toll but if you are commuting with 2 people, you would pay a toll to ride in the fast lane. This plan would guarantee revenue for the length of the lease. A HOV lane typically requires 2 persons in the car but in this instance, a HOT lane rewards those commuters with 3 or more persons — no toll.

Jeremy Roebuck of MontCo Memo, a blogger writing on Montgomery County politics and communities writes an interesting post today on the Montgomery County politics of the tolling of 422. Looks like there are some Montgomery County politicians who believe to support 422 tolling could be their poison pill in November. Here’s Roebuck’s post:

MontCo Memo, www.philly.com – posted by Jeremy Roebuck

For whom 422 tolls?

Well, that didn’t take long…

A week ago Montgomery County’s commissioner candidates adopted a mostly wait-and-see attitude regarding the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s plan to toll 422 to fund much-needed, congestion-easing improvements. This week, all four have come out against the plan.

Incumbent Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. and his Republican ticket running mate Jenny Brown, a Lower Merion Commissioner, released a statement Wednesday declaring their opposition. Said Brown: “The taxpayers have already paid for route 422, and tolling in this circumstance is not appropriate.”

Brown has a history of being a fiscally conservative hawk on Lower Merion’s board of supervisors, so no surprises there. Castor, who said last week he wasn’t crazy about the idea but needed more information, joined Brown in full-throated condemnation Wednesday.

Not to be outdone, Democratic candidates State Rep. Josh Shapiro and Whitemarsh Supervisor Leslie Richards released a joint-statement of their own, also poo-pooing the prospects of tolls: “We are committed to reducing congestion on our roadways–particularly along the Rt. 422 corridor. While we are in search of workable solutions to address our infrastructure needs, we are opposed to the Rt. 422 tolling plan.” Last week, Richards said she looked forward to seeing what the DVRPC was going to propose.

It was always going to be a tough sell. To pass, the DVRPC’s plan needs approval first from the state assembly — which must approve legislation allowing locally run tolling authorities in the state. Then, county commissioners had to come together in Montgomery, Chester and Berks Counties to create such an authority here.

And while many state and local politicos agree in private that the tolling proposal is the only way 422’s congestion will be eased any time soon, it’s become political poison among the area’s cash-strapped commuters.

Don’t think for a second those political factors haven’t weighed on the minds of the DVRPC’s planners. Unveiling the plan during a county election year is a gamble as it is sure to become an issue in commissioners’ campaigns in the three counties. But putting it off another year, would drop the question right in the middle of State Assembly races. (State Rep. Warren Kampf, R., Chester, has already shown the power of taking a strong anti-toll stance. He unseated incumbent Paul Drucker in part on a platform opposed to tolling.)

Still, Joseph M. Hoeffel III — vice chair of MontCo’s commissioners’ board, head of the DVRPC, and one of the tolling plan’s chief proponents — thinks there’s still room to navigate these tricky political waters.

Then again, he’s not running for re-election.

TESD’s EIT Tax Study Group . . . You Have until Midnight Tonight to Apply!

June 15, 2011

28 Comments

I attended the TESD Public Information Committee meeting yesterday . . . primarily to fully understand the selection process for committee members and the mission of the Earned Income Tax (EIT) Tax Study Group.

Several months ago, the T/E school board decided to create a citizen tax study group and sent postcards to Tredyffrin and Easttown township residents asking those interested to fill out an application and submit it to the school district – tonight at midnight, June 15 is the deadline.

According to the application, “This citizen group will study the effects that an Earned Income Tax (EIT) would have on the School District and its residents. Following its study, the Tax Study Group members will present the pros and cons of an EIT to the School Board and the community. Tax Study Group members must be willing to be introduced publicly as the Tax Study Group and be willing to present information at one or two televised meetings. The Tax Study Group will meet up to eight times in September and October 2011.”

The EIT tax study group application contains 19 questions ranging from age, gender to level of education, profession, whether or not you currently pay an EIT and two important questions (in my opinion) Why do you wish to be a member of the Tax Study Group? and what particular expertise could you bring to the Tax Study Group?

Part of the Public Information Committee meeting agenda was to look at the selection process of the nine members that would form this tax study group. At the meeting, the school board members began constructing the process. As a means of distancing themselves personally from the members that were to be chosen, it was determined that it would be a blind, random choice based on specific criteria. For the sake of anonymity and fairness, the school board members would not know the names and addresses of the applicants.

I sat and listened as the five board members attending the meeting (Debbie Bookstaber, Karen Cruickshank, Kevin Buraks, Anne Crowley and Betsy Fadem) prepared their list of criteria in order of priority. Their order of priority of criteria for selection on the tax study group is:

1. 3 members of the group to be Easttown Residents; 6 members of the group to be Tredyffrin residents.
2. There should be a mix of people who (a) currently pay an EIT elsewhere; (b) those who are residents and work in the district and for which an EIT would be a new tax and (c) those residents that are retired and therefore would not be paying an EIT. It was suggested to include 4 members that currently pay an EIT and to include 5 members for whom an EIT would be a new tax.
3. 2-3 members should have school age children in T/E
4. Age of applicant
5. Gender of applicant
6. Renters
7. Business background

There were only 3 audience members at this meeting (1 Easttown resident and 2 Tredyffrin residents) and I sat rather impatiently listening to their criteria; not quite believing that what I viewed as the most important baseline criteria was not mentioned. As they were completing their list of criteria, I reminded them that at the school board meeting when this was originally discussed, it was agreed that the tax study group would be ‘apolitical’. I mentioned that the application had not addressed the poltical issue but recalled that Kevin Mahoney specifically suggested that current school board members and township supervisors as well as candidates for the school board and township supervisors be excluded from the group. I asked how those specific would be excluded if the names were not to be known in the selection.

To their credit, the board members immediately placed that at the top of the criteria and assured me that staff would pull any of those applications. Seeking further clarification, I asked about ‘former’ school board members or ‘former’ township supervisors – were their applications suitable. Yes. What about applicants with connections to the local political parties, were their applications suitable. The answer was yes. This suggests that Democratic or Republican committee people (or those individuals closely associated with local political campaigns) are suitable applicants for the tax study group. Attempting to further explain this study group needs to be apolitical, I suggested that when the 9 members of the group are known, the public will recogonize if these individuals are in the category of ‘political’. I have attended enough school board, finance and budget meetings to know that if 25 residents show up to any of these meetings, that is a lot of interest. Therefore, when I learned yesterday, they have received 150 applications, I do not think it is a stretch to assume that there may be some politics going on. I want this to be a very positive and informational experience for the community; not a tax study group that is tainted with politics. I am hoping that this Community Matters post will give the board time to reflect before the members of the tax study group are chosen.

The other troubling aspect of the criteria selection was that the 2 questions at the end of the application – Why do you wish to be a member and what particular expertise could you bring to the group were overlooked and may be all but forgotten in the selection process. It is important to have qualified people as members of this tax study group. We live in a community that is rich with residents with skills, background and expertise, so shouldn’t that be a major factor in the selection? In addition, ‘why’ someone wants to participate is also very telling and should be factored in the choice.

As for the actual process of the selection – it is my understanding that the decision will be made at the Finance Committee meeting on Monday, June 20. The residents chosen for the tax study group will be called and asked of their willingness to participate. All applicants will be put in to individual groups and the names randomly chosen. They feel that renters are needed in the mix and to date, there is not a single renter among the 150 applications. If you are a numbers person, happen to be a renter and want a seat at the tax study table, the odds are in your favor.

I hope that the EIT Tax Study Group selection process goes well and that residents are offering to participate for the right reason. I suggest the process be documented prior to the selection of the members; otherwise, residents are going to look at the school board members if there is a problem.

What’s the Price of a Hamburger in T/E? Property Taxes to Increase by 3.77%

June 14, 2011

9 Comments

In case you have not heard, the T/E School Board voted to approve the final 2011-12 budget last night . . . and yes folks; the residents of TESD will receive a 3.77% property tax increase. The vote count on the budget was 7-2; Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were the dissenting votes. I guess I should have expected this outcome, but was surprised nonetheless. I left the school board meeting feeling that the decision was preordained and that no amount of discussion was going to change anything.

At the June 1 school board meeting, the school board voted to accept the TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown non-instructional group) union’s agreement amendment for no salary increase for 2011-12. The school board decided not to out-source the custodial service; thus saving $300K in salaries and additionally $150K in overtime costs, for a total of approximately $450K savings to TESD. Many of the custodial staff are T/E residents, so the board decision saved some local jobs.

It was my understanding that at last night’s board meeting, the public would have the details about the custodian outsourcing RFP bidding process – how many custodian companies bid the job, what was the range of their bids, etc. I was disappointed that custodian outsourcing was not on the agenda, nor was there any discussion on the topic. If I want further information, I guess it would require filing a right-to-know request. I am not suggesting that the school board’s choice was incorrect; I just think that the public has a right to know the details pertaining to their decision.

Ray Clarke also attended the meeting last night and I am pleased to offer his notes from the meeting below. You will note that Ray mentions school board member Kevin Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to the cost of ‘hamburgers’. Out of context, his comparison is difficult to understand; so I have included the video clip prepared by Bob Byrne, editor of TE Patch. To understand Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to hamburgers, you will need to click here for the video.

Ray Clark’s T/E School Board Meeting, 6/13/11 Notes

The School Board approved by a 7-2 vote a 2011/12 budget that differed only marginally from the preliminary one, a result of removing the $150,000 contribution from the food service fund, thus increasing the draw from the general fund.

Only Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were consistent in standing up for taxpayers. (On the other side, though, only Kevin Mahoney, Anne Crowley and Kevin Buraks spoke up for the budget – at their peril, though, see below. And, does Jim Bruce ever contribute anything to important issues?).

The increase results in a millage rate calculated to six significant figures (18.6474), in order (as was stated) to capture every last cent of permissible blood from the taxpayer stone. This despite the points below made by most of the board that spoke – regardless of which way they voted!

1. The amount of year’s tax increase does not change the structural budget problem in subsequent years.

2. There is a $29 million general fund balance, earning next-to-no interest, and which will be depleted by less than 7% under the proposed budget (with another 7% contingency for everything including the kitchen sink).

3. Since the preliminary budget, the district has received $1.2 million of union sacrifices. The taxpayer sees no benefit of those.

4. Since the preliminary budget, the state house and senate are working on bills that will likely restore the >$1 million capricious social security reimbursement cut in Corbett’s budget.

5. The district has consistently over the years held the line at the Act 1 Index increase, up until now.

6. The aggregate metropolitan area is is managing with less than two thirds of T/E’s increase.

Crowley sees the maximum increase for 2011/12 as key to maintaining the education program long term, while Buraks likened the TE educational product to hamburger, priced (tax rate? tax amount? spending per student?) just less than Great Valley’s and more substantially below Lower Merion’s. Since the product is arguably at least as good, we should be just fine with increasing the price. The very same argument that the union have used for years to ratchet up compensation and get us into today’s mess!

Let’s just continue this analogy: People chose to live here because they appreciate hamburgers, and they like the value of T/E’s. Increases beyond the competition’s remove that value. They also like that the other customers share their values and that eating with them at the stand enhances the value of the meal, and indeed they volunteer at the hamburger stand to make the product even better. Nothing whatsoever to do with the amount spent for the burgers themselves. Also remember that T/E’s product is inherently better value because it has made lower cost restaurant location choices than, say, LM, and has better scale in its operations than, say, Radnor, and has more non-consuming commercial interests that contribute to its cost.

Another disappointing item on the “Consent Agenda”: the approval of pricing for contracted services for 2011/12. The Board voted to approve 10 pages of supplier prices for mostly special education services but also many facilities contractors, “orthopedic specialist”, lawyers, “schooldude.com”, etc. etc. This information was in the online agenda, but not in the meeting hand out. Why?

But that’s not the point. From the information presented there was no way to tell how prices compared with this year’s or where the spend is likely to be concentrated. We do know that the architect hourly fees are down and the solicitor costs are flat, but what about the rest? There’s a budget strategy to get supplier costs down – how much did this list contribute to that strategy? There is no indication that the Board received any information on which to base their approval of the pricing. Even though there is no commitment to purchase, this just is not acceptable governance practice.

Also: a) A lot going on in Harrisburg; unpredictable, but tending to shift the balance of power towards districts/taxpayers and away from unions, and b) Facilities wants to move forward with a trial rental of Teamer Field on week-ends, and battle lines seem to be forming.

Every Vote Does Count . . . Duffy Concedes Special Election to Heaberg

June 14, 2011

2 Comments

“You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”
~ Molly Duffy

Although questions remain surrounding the malfunctioning voting machines and how 61 ballots were not originally counted, the special election ballots have been satisfactorily reconciled and as of tonight, Molly Duffy (D) has conceded the race to Mike Heaberg (R). As a result of the special election, Heaberg will complete the vacated term of Warren Kampf, until January 2012.

Chester County Voter Services has updated their website and are now indicating their results as official and certified. Steve Shapiro, Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin’s W2 precinct has compiled the results of the election precinct by precinct into spreadsheets and kindly offers them to Community Matters readers.

For comparison of unofficial to certified results by candidate, click here.
For comparison of unofficial to certified results by party, click here.

Duffy and Heaberg will be on the ballot in the general election, along with Kristen Mayock (R) and Ernie Falcone (D). In November voters will choose 2 at-large supervisors between Heaberg, Duffy, Mayock and Falcone.

Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, provided the following press release on the Tredyffrin Township’s special election results.

Duffy Looks Long Term for Supervisor

Wayne, PA, June 13, 2011— Certification of the Special Election vote for Tredyffrin Supervisor should be announced this week after a complete manual count of ballots and full reconciliation by Chester County’s Voter Services. While there has still been no plausible explanation of how 61 ballots could have gone uncounted on Election Day, Democratic candidate Molly Duffy’s 40-vote lead on election night has fallen to a two vote deficit, out of over 4500 ballots cast.

Molly Duffy said this about the race and result: “I want to thank all those who supported me and voted for me, especially my family. Statistically the result of our campaign’s hard work feels like a ‘virtual tie.’ But it only takes one vote to win. We put forth a tremendous effort and showed that running a campaign based on qualifications and issues resonated with voters. Everyone should be heartened, not heart-broken, over the photo finish in the special election.

I know I’m looking forward to the November election for a full four-year term as Supervisor. I’ll keep stressing the important issues facing our township: We need to revitalize our business corridors, improve traffic management, and provide safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists. It is vital that we maintain the quality of township services expected in Tredyffrin, including police and fire protection, while holding the line on taxes.

Our campaign noted my work with municipalities—including other municipalities, in addition to Tredyffrin. I’ve worked on business improvement and transportation plans, including for Paoli. I’m running for Supervisor because I believe in finding and implementing solutions.

It takes Supervisors with a bent toward action and some far-sightedness to help realize the community’s vision. We’re fortunate to be living in a wonderful community. I want to help preserve its virtues and enrich it as a great place to live.

Thanks again to everyone who came out to vote and made May an exciting election. I hope you will remember my experience and my vision, and bring some friends along to vote for me on November 8.

You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”

Random Files: short news updates

June 12, 2011

7 Comments

Tredyffrin’s Special Election Results . . . Chester County Voter Services completed the hand count of the Duffy/Heaberg Special Election ballots from the May 17 primary a couple of weeks ago. Originally, the count indicated Heaberg ahead by 3 votes but a provisional ballot for Duffy was found; 2 votes currently separate the candidates. Due to many malfunctioning voting machines countywide, it is my understanding that voter services has been working overtime to certify the election results by the 30-day deadline on June 17. Look for the results to be certified early this week; word has it that alignment issues with Republican ballots heads the list of possible reasons for the problem. Does make you wonder about prior close elections . . . here’s hoping that whatever the problem, it is thoroughly researched (and corrected) prior to November’s general election.

Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook Shopping Center . . . Empty for a year, we had heard that the Bottom Dollar Grocery chain was going to take the vacant space but that offer fell through. The next development in March of this year, Centro Properties sold 588 shopping centers (including Chesterbrook) to private equity giant, Blackstone Group for $9.4 billion. Although the lease sign remains on Genuardi’s, there has been recent movement in the last few days. Paul Prestia, a local attorney with Ratner Prestia in Westlakes is floating an idea to the community to create a food co-op in the former Genuardi’s space. Using a model similar to Swarthmore Co-op, www.swarthmore.coop/ it would specialize in locally sourced and organic food. This is an interesting redevelopment idea for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center and I will be curious to see if it develops further.

Brian O’Neill . . . the King of Prussia developer behind the Uptown Worthington project in Malvern is back in the news. The O’Neill Properties vs. Citizens Bank trial is slated to begin in December and O’Neill has dramatically reduced his original $billion+ demands down to $297 million. Once the parties reach a settlement, construction is expected to get underway again at Worthington. O’Neill’s vision remains for Uptown Worthington – the ‘Center City of Great Valley’. His vision will require more than the current two stores, Wegnman’s and Target, on the 100+ acres.

T/E School Budget . . . The TESD school board makes the final 2011-12 budget vote on Monday night, June 13, 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School. Property tax increase is projected at 3.8%. Click here for the agenda.

EIT Tax Study Group . . . Applications are still being accepted from Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for the TESD EIT Tax Study Group – deadline for applications is Wednesday, June 15. The TESD Public Information meeting is Tuesday, June 14 and the selection process will be discussed. There are to be 9 committee members chosen and my understanding is that 100 applications have been received to date. Click here for the application. The success of the tax study group depends on a non-political selection process and committee membership.

HARB no more . . . As of the May Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Tredyffrin’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) was replaced by a Historic Commission. With an expanding mission to protect historic properties in the township, I was pleased that supervisors showed their support of preserving the township’s historic resources with a unanimous vote. I am expecting great things from our new commission, and am excited to be part of it.

Planning Commission – Where’s the Sidewalk Ordinance amendment on your agenda . . . I was very surprised to see that the sidewalk ordinance discussion is off this week’s Planning Commission agenda. The proposed ordinance amendment establishes the criteria for the requirement to construct sidewalks and establish a fee in lieu of construction procedure and is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, June 20. Having attended the last Planning Commission meeting, it appeared commissioners had not reached a consensus on the ordinance, so why is it off the agenda for their meeting?

For those that may have forgotten, the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue remains outstanding since December 2009. The land development agreement between the township and St. Davids requiring sidewalks is now 4 or 5 (?) years old and yet the clock continues to tick (and tick, and tick). Whose responsibility is to enforce the sidewalks at St. Davids? It is now eighteen months since the St. Davids sidewalk issue was ‘set aside’ by Tredyffrin’s supervisors and, to date there remains no resolution in the matter.

Is the sidewalk issue going to be the 2011 supervisor campaign issue, as the 422 issue was to the 2010 State House race? Adding a new twist to the continuing sidewalk saga, supervisor Paul Olson (R) is up for re-election from the eastern district. Having served as supervisor for 30 years, he is on record as opposing the St. Davids sidewalk; proclaiming it the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’. Olson’s opponent in the supervisor race, Tory Snyder (D) is a Planning Commissioner and served as chair of the sidewalks subcommittee. She supports the green routes network and the sidewalks component of the township’s comprehensive plan. Olson and Snyder are scheduled to square off against each other in November’s general election.

Valley View Shopping Center . . . If you haven’t driven down this section of 252 lately, you might be surprised at the level of activity. The redevelopment of the old Bargain Bookstore is well underway; it appears that they are gutting both floors of the building for a new branch of Mealey’s Furniture. In the same shopping center, the old Charlie Brown Restaurant is undergoing much change for its transformation in to a new McKenzie Brew House. Originally slated for completion in September, signs point that the microbrewery is on schedule.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters