“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
~ Mark Twain
Happy Father’s Day . . . Dads, enjoy your day!
In checking the agenda for Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting, I noted Chester County Planning Commission presentation of the 422 Corridor Master Plan. Not being quite sure exactly what this ‘master plan’ entailed, I did some background research. Here’s a link for the 422 Corridor master plan if you’re interested.
On a schedule since the first of June, representatives from the Chester County Planning Commission, Montgomery County Planning Commission and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission are presenting their 422 Corridor Master Plan outreach program to the various municipalities. They are bringing their draft master plan to Tredyffrin this Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. A new transit line, as well as tolls on Route 422 may be in the area’s future (albeit probably not in the immediate future). A possible train line is seen as an option to provide an alternative to travel by automobile — extending transit service beyond Norristown along an already-existing rail line.
The creation of the 422 Corridor Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to planning development in the 24 corridor municipalities in Chester, Montgomery and Berks counties. The 422 Master Plan is a comprehensive land use and transportation infrastructure plan that looks at the entire corridor. An important element of the master plan is how to handle growth, development and the ever- increasing traffic on 422. The plan suggests the widening of 422 in addition to ramp and interchange improvements.
Since the tolling of Interstate 80 has fallen through, the financing required for the 422 Corridor Master Plan would appear to be a bit in limbo. Why does the fate of all local state improvement projects seem to lead back to I-80’s loss of tolling? It is my understanding that the tolling of 422 is still considered a possibility to help offset the major land developments costs contained in the 422 Corridor Master Plan.
The county planning commissions are taking the 422 plan ‘on the road’ to each of the municipalities hoping that elected officials and residents will provide comments. The township supervisors will be asked to consider adopting a resolution endorsing the master plan’s principles and strategies. Looking to have the municipalities work together in partnership with the county planning commissions is probably the premise behind Monday’s presentation at the Board of Supervisors meeting.
State Rep Paul Drucker is on record as supporting 422 tolling and, as I recall, was later criticized by his state representative opponent Warren Kampf for supporting the project. With the county planning commissioners seeking a partnership agreement with Tredyffrin’s supervisors for their 422 Corridor Master Plan, it will be interesting to hear Kampf publically voice his opinion.
On another note — the Board of Supervisors meeting agenda is the scheduling of the public hearing for student housing registration ordinance. This is a first step in the process to manage student housing issues in the township (specifically in the Mt. Pleasant community). I am glad to see some positive movement in this direction and look forward to some resolution for residents with student rental issues.
Reminder – Paoli Library is celebrating their 100th birthday tomorrow with an Ice Cream Social and the community is invited. What’s better than ice cream on a hot summer day! Details below —
In the days leading up to the May Primary, comparison of expenditures between State House 157 Republican candidates Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf was discussed on Community Matters. At that time, some Community Matters readers criticized me for not discussing the expenditures of Democrat candidate State House Representative Paul Drucker. I explained that as an unopposed, endorsed candidate I thought it would be more appropriate to compare Drucker’s campaign expenses after the Primary (when we knew the identify of his Republican opponent). However, as a reader has recently commented, the Primary is over, Warren Kampf is the Republican candidate and the campaign finance reports are available.
Comparing the latest campaign finance reports of 5/3/10 of both Drucker and Kampf was an interesting exercise. (Campaign finance reports are public documents). Looking at the campaign finance reports shows you various things, including the level of funding received by candidates, listing of candidates expenditures and specific donations received by the candidates.
Here are the candidates totals as of 5/3/10:
Looking at Schedule III of the campaign finance reports for Drucker and Kampf, it is interesting to look at how each candidate spent money. Below is a breakdown of the top expenses of each campaign:
So where did the candidates receive their major campaign funding to date? The campaign finance report details the (1) Political Committee Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250 and (2) All Other Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250. Any contribution of $50 or less is not required to be reported.
Both candidates have received many donations from generous supporters. For the purposes of this discussion, I am only going to focus on the contributions that are $1,000 or greater.
In the category of Political Committee Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:
In the category of All Other Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:
I remember hearing that the State House 157 race between Paul Drucker and Guy Ciarrocchi was the most expensive race in Pennsylvania’s 2008 election year. The amount of money spent on the 2008 race was shocking. How will the contributions in the Drucker and Kampf match up to the 2008 level of funding? Although the campaign contributions and expenditures indicated in the campaign finance report for Drucker and Kampf would seem high, I think it is safe to assume that raising money in today’s economic climate will be far more difficult than just a couple of years ago.
But then again, should it really need to cost $500K or more to win a Pennsylvania state representative seat? Personally, I would hate to think that Drucker and Kampf will expend anywhere near that kind of money between now and November’s general election. Much time can be spent by candidates “dialing for dollars” to a select few rather than talking with a wide range of voters about their beliefs, hopes and needs. It would seem that the endless competition for funds from special interest groups weakens the role of civic dialogue and can create ineffective governance.
Pennsylvania is one of only five states that have no contribution limits and no public financing of elections. As a state representative in Pennsylvania, with a 2-year term, you no sooner are elected than you are soliciting funds for the next campaign – almost as if fundraising becomes a second profession. The lax laws mean a candidate can spend an enormous amount of money on a campaign. This puts pressure on incumbents to keep their coffers filled in case of a well-financed challenge.
The rules on funding campaigns in Pennsylvania need to change. There are good proposals out there; lawmakers just need courage to vote on them.
My friend, Ray Clarke once again has not let us down with his detailed notes and commentary from the TESD School Board meeting. Posting the agenda from last night’s meeting, I noted its 101 pages so I have a feeling that last night was long and tedious. Which makes me all the more grateful that Ray attended, took notes and then provides us with his thoughtful remarks. Thanks Ray!
I was particularly interested to know that PSERS was discussed at the meeting. The large white elephant in the room, we’d all like to hope that PSERS goes away or somehow just self-corrects but we know that’s just wishful thinking. PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evan’s proposed legislation addresses PSERS, but appears to be a delay tactic where the major liability to the taxpayers remains. But I suppose one could say his bill is better than nothing . . . which is where we currently are on the subject.
At the end of Ray’s notes he asks for State House candidates Drucker and Kampf to weigh in, but my experience says that will be doubtful. Unfortunately, my discussions with politicians anymore seem to be laced with an ‘it’s off the record’ remark . . . but maybe these candidates will surprise us!
Read over Ray’s comments from the meeting and please provide your thoughts. Any other readers attend the meeting, if so, please weigh in with your comments.
The School Board passed:
- The 2010/11 budget with a 2.9% property tax increase, as developed and communicated over the past six months
- Issuance of $23.6 million of bonds at “record low interest rates” – but which will still cost $36.7 million to repay over the next 15 years. Part will be used to advance refund existing bonds, which will save $170,000 next year and have a total net present value savings of $377,000 over the next dozen years. Note that the savings are front-loaded, extra costs come in the out years (see later, re PSERS……)
- A bid to demolish the ESC, leading to a total project cost of $450,000 – about half the working estimates, which is very good news. The work to take place at the end of the calendar year.
- Modifications to the K-6 class sizing practice that will save three teaching positions next year and more later, while remaining in accordance with current staffing policy. The implementation enabled by more recent resignations than expected.
- A bid for printing services to replace the print shop currently housed in the ESC. Important to note that the budget strategy to save $84,000 did not explicitly articulate the $52,000 cost for the outsourced services, although apparently that cost is included in the budget. There was an agonizing 15 minute discussion while the Board and Administration talked all around this without facing up to it.
Interesting update about PSERS: PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evans has introduced a bill to implement a Rendell plan to delay the increase in employer (= taxpayer) contributions to teacher and state employee pension plans. Basically this limits the rate of increase of contributions via “collars” on the percentage of payroll that the taxpayer would have to contribute. Here’s an analysis:
http://www.paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/alternate-state-pension-plan-would-cost-8-billion
From some of the numbers floated, I guess this would provide TESD with at least a $5 million annual expense saving (vs the current forecast) in the problem years coming up.But of course, the liabilities are still out there, so, to quote another website:
http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org/forum/forums/p/149/300.aspx#300:
“An actuarial note attached to the bill by PERC (the PA Public Employee Retirement Commission) estimates that the higher costs in later year will far outweigh the contribution reductions in earlier years – to the tune of an astonishing $52 billion over 30 years. That is an additional $52 billion that taxpayers – through higher state and school property taxes – will have to fork over to pay off the pension obligations, and this assumes an 8% annual return on investment.”
This bill is being compared to refinancing a mortgage, which is not a bad analogy. Continuing with that: the plan does of course completely fail to address the fact that the principal (the public sector pension liability) vastly exceeds the market value (= pensions valued at private sector levels). Not a thought being given to writing down that liability!For how long will voters put up with the union stranglehold on the legislature? At some point the economic pain will become overwhelming. What do our current and would-be representatives think about this?
Tomorrow night, Monday, June 14, the school board will deliver the 2010-11 budget for final approval. The meeting is scheduled for 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School – here is the meeting agenda (word of warning – the agenda is 101 pages so suggest reviewing it online rather than printing!). I don’t think that there are any anticipated surprises to the budget. The school board has done a great job of keeping the public informed during this tedious budget process; I’m sure that there will be a collective sigh of relief from school board member after tomorrow night’s budget vote. I have a conflict with another board meeting tomorrow, but I hope that many residents will attend, and then share their thoughts.
Knowing that tomorrow was closing a chapter on the school district budget, I was interested in an Associated Press education article that was picked up in various newspapers this weekend. The article is about teacher tenure reform and how the Colorado legislature has made a rather bold statement against the teacher union in their state. Colorado is changing the way their teachers retain their jobs; using annual reviews and student performance statistics to make tenure decisions. In case you did not see the article, an excerpt is below.
In bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN, Associated Press Writer Colleen Slevin
DENVER – Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, long considered a political sacred cow around the country. Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America’s schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult. Teacher unions, meanwhile, have steadfastly defended tenure for decades.
Colorado’s legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state’s largest teacher’s union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month. After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears. “I don’t question your motives,” an emotional Todd said to the bill’s proponents. “But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them.”
While other states have tried to modify tenure, Colorado’s law was the boldest education reform in recent memory, according to Kate Walsh, the president of the Washington-based National Council on Teacher Quality, which promotes changing the way teachers are recruited and retained, including holding tenured teachers accountable with annual reviews. The new law requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they’ve boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don’t show progress for two consecutive years. That won’t be a possibility until 2015, however, because lawmakers slowed down the process under political pressure from the teachers’ union. Teachers can appeal dismissal all the way to the state Supreme Court, and school districts have the burden of proving why they should be terminated.
Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
Every state but Wisconsin has some form of tenure. The protections were intended to protect teachers from being fired because of their politics, religion or other arbitrary reasons. On average, school districts across the country dismiss 2.1 percent of teachers annually, generally for bad conduct rather than performance.
Colorado’s measure is a tribute to the tenacity of freshman Democratic state Sen. Michael Johnston, a former Teach for America teacher, principal and Obama education adviser. The 35-year-old Harvard- and Yale-trained lawyer was appointed to represent a largely minority Denver district that has seen an influx of more white residents because of redevelopment of the city’s former airport. He successfully fought changes to the bill that would have eased expectations for teachers with traditionally low performing students.
Although various states have responded to the lure of federal money by moving to tie teacher evaluations to student performance, no other state specifically changed its tenure laws as Colorado did.
Many teachers and some education experts argue that tenure reform is unnecessary. Margaret Bobb, an earth science teacher at Denver’s East High School, said bad teachers are often quietly coached out of their jobs by administrators, avoiding the protracted tenure dismissal process. She contends tenure is still needed to prevent good teachers from being dismissed for running afoul of administrators and to prevent experienced — and more expensive — teachers from being let go by cash-strapped districts.
“Education is not just you and your class. It’s not an individual activity. If you’re doing your best, it’s a system you’re a part of,” Bobb said.
The Main Line Suburban Life newspaper is reporting that Radnor Township has hired a permanent finance director who will start in July with a salary of $127,000. Watching from the sidelines in Tredyffrin, the residents of Radnor have had more than their share of financial problems and it’s good to know that help is on the way for them.
The article also mentioned that this new hire in Radnor will be the regions best-compensated finance director and listed the salary of Lower Merion’s finance director at $114,921. At the end of the article, one sentence caught my eye — stating that Tredyffrin Township’s new finance director will start this month at a salary of $100,000. This was news to me — I checked the township website and I didn’t see an announcement (actually the website has the finance director position listed as still available). I have emailed the Board of Supervisors and Mimi Gleason for confirmation. I’ll let you know if Board of Supervisor chairman Bob Lamina responds.
As a taxpayer, I am very concerned about the township budget and its financial oversight and would feel more comfortable knowing that our township has a qualified finance director onboard. Here’s hoping that the news is correct.
Update: Mimi responded to my email — yes, a new finance director has been hired and will start on June 28. She offered that she could provide further details on that date.
The public is invited this Sunday, June 13, 2-4 PM to the Annual Summer 2010 Open House of the very special historic Diamond Rock Schoolhouse. The schoolhouse is located at the intersection of Yellow Springs Road and Diamond Rock Road in Malvern, near Valley Forge Park.
Please, . . . take the opportunity to visit this little jewel in our own backyard. Stop by and bring your children so they can see how it was in the ‘olden days’ before cell phones and computers.
A brief history of the Diamond Rock Schoolhouse from their website, www.diamondrockschoolhouse.org :
In 1818, half a century before the advent of public schools in this area, a small community of primarily Mennonite families contributed their labor and money to building this one room schoolhouse and hiring a teacher. They chose an octagonal plan – at the time a popular architectural concept – because it provided one wall and window for each of the six grades, another for the teacher opposite one for the door. The students sat on benches facing table-like desks against the wall with their backs to the warmth of a small wood-burning stove. As the teacher would address a class, those students would turn around to face the center.
As the population increased, the school closed in 1864 and the pupils were divided between nearby Walker and Salem Village schools. After 1864, the old schoolhouse fell into disrepair but was eventually restored in 1909 by the Diamond Rock School Old Pupils Association, a group of former students who saw great value in preserving their former school for future generations. Their work is continued today by the member-supported Diamond Rock Schoolhouse Preservation Association.
After much delay, I am excited to report that the waiting for the opening of the new Wegmans at Worthington will soon be over. 
Wegmans has scheduled their grand opening for Sunday, July 18, 7 AM. To see the complete announcement from Wegmans, click here. The Wegmans grand opening announcement is creative with a video and a ticking countdown clock — 39 days, 18 hours, 48 min. & 20 sec. as I write this post. Free gifts available if you sign up for a Wegmans card before July 17!
In looking at the floor plan online I noted some unusual marketing — Wegmans lists Timber, Alcove and Conference rooms next to the Market Cafe & Pub as available for meetings. Now isn’t that an out-of-the-box idea for a grocery store — you can use the conference room for your meeting and have beer/wine from the Pub and lunch from Market Cafe. Their Beverage & Beer Center is indicating that they will have 700 imported and regional beers for sale. Their Deli is touting 300 specialty cheeses from all over the world. Wegmans is also offering free WiFi — nothing like keeping you in the store, you know the longer the shopper is in the store, the more likely they are to continue to spend money!
Besides my personal obsession with Wegmans, I am excited to see positive economic growth in our community. It looks like the Worthington Target may also be close to opening; last update I heard was July 2010.
The $180 million Ardmore Transit Center planned for downtown Ardmore shares many similarities with the vision many are planning for the Paoli Transportation Center. Ardmore’s downtown facelift is to include replacing the existing train station plus a new Main Street area with 500-car parking garage, stores and a five-story apartment building. The project is set to completely revitalize the historic community of Ardmore by the creation of a new mixed-use village much like what is planned for Paoli.
The developer for the Ardmore project, Dranoff Properties of Philadelphia is asking Lower Merion Commissioners for a one-year extension claiming design issues with Amtrak. In December, Dranoff learned that Amtrak will be upgrading its electrification system in 10 years and the overhead power lines needs to be factored in to the planned design; resulting in at least a 6 months delay. Dranoff’s extension request will be discussed at Lower Merion’s next commissioner meeting. However, residents are learning that there is more than design delays, there are money problems due to SEPTA. If you recall, SEPTA had made a big publicity splash with its announcement of 22 capital projects. However, now SEPTA is saying these projects may have to wait indefinitely. SEPTA’s contribution to the Ardmore Transit Center was to be $10 million – SEPTA’s general manager Joseph Casey is blaming Washington, pointing the finger at the federal government’s decision not to add tolls to Pennsylvania’s I-80.
The Ardmore Transit Center has been bogged down by one problem or another since the project originally launched in 2004 with a federal grant. Just 2 years ago, the original developer pulled out of the project and was replaced by Dranoff Properties. Last year, Carl Dranoff of Dranoff Properties and township commissioners said they were counting on $5.8 million from the Federal Transit Administration, $6 million in state funding for the 500-car parking garage, $10 million from SEPTA, and $250,000 from Montgomery County.
This past Friday, St. Joseph’s University hosted a state House transportation and policy meeting where SEPTA’s general manager revealed that insufficient funding from Washington was forcing SEPTA to cut $110 million from its capital budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. Although extremely frustrating, Dranoff and Lower Merion officials appear to be optimistic that their money troubles will be resolved and that project will go forward. Or is this going to be another sign of the economics of our times where we see major projects such as infrastructure repairs on roads and bridges, transportation centers, etc. all put on indefinite ‘hold’?
Hearing the news on the Ardmore Transit Center project, Rep Jim Gerlach (R) responded, “. . . I am becoming increasingly concerned that continuing delays will ultimately threaten the federal funds I have already worked to obtain. Rather than asking for more delays, the residents and taxpayers deserve a redoubling of efforts by all parties – Amtrak, SEPTA, the township, and the developer – to get this project done as expeditiously as possible.”
So what exactly does this news mean for the Paoli Transportation Center? SEPTA forced to cut their capital budget by $110 million, doesn’t that impact the future of our economic revitalization project in Paoli? Since Ardmore started their transportation center project before Paoli, it would seem that their project is ahead of us for SEPTA, state and federal funding.
I would like for State Rep Paul Drucker to weigh in on the status of funding for Paoli’s transportation center. As the developer for the Paoli Transportation Center, maybe Peter Monaghan of Strategic Realty Investments could comment as to whether he thinks Ardmore’s funding situation with their transit center will have an impact on Paoli’s redevelopment project.