Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Proposed 6% Tax Increase in T/E School District – the Largest in Decades! Is It Possible that an Accounting “Timing” Error Could Change the Outcome for Homeowners?

March 26, 2019
31 Comments

Did you know that as T/E School District homeowners we are in line for the largest yearly tax increase for decades!

As it now stands, our school board has targeted us for a 6% tax increase! In December, as the preliminary budget for 2019-20 was in the early stages of preparation, the discussion indicated a possible tax increase of 6.1% but the Board assured us that they would work to bring down the increase. Three plus months later, the projected tax increase remains at 6% although at last night’s school board meeting, we were again told that the board is working to bring the number down.

The question is “why” the proposed staggering increase; the largest in decades! And to be clear, the proposed tax increase is not based on the Conestoga HS expansion plan – that capital project will be funded separately through new bond initiatives. Which brings me back to the question, WHY this looming large tax increase?

As we learned from Ray Clarke at the school board meeting last night, there appears to be an explanation (and suggested solution) for the proposed tax increase. And should the school board act on Mr. Clarke’s findings, it could reduce the proposed increase significantly. Taxpayers could see the proposed tax increase lowered by as much as 50%.

Mr. Clarke opened his remarks with the following:

  • There is ample public evidence that the allowable 6% tax increase presented in the preliminary budget is in error due to an accounting timing issue
  • The actual allowable tax increase is, most likely, much less
  • It would be in the best interests of the public, the Board and the Administration to address this issue in a prompt, transparent manner

( Click here to read complete Ray Clarke Special Ed statement)

According to information received at the District’s Finance Committee meeting of March 11, the accounting problem stems from unpaid invoice(s) of $1 million+ that were received in the 2016-17 year. The invoice(s) from the Chester County Intermediate Unit (CCIU) were paid, and more importantly accounted for, during the 2017-18 year.

The Special Ed exception for tax purposes is based on increases in annual expenditures; so getting the year correct is extremely important. By moving the Special Ed expense from 2016-17 to the following year (albeit by error/accident) causes a false reading by inaccurately inflating the expenses in 2017-18.

After Mr. Clarke read his statement, Neal Culligan continued with remarks imploring the board to seek further review before imposing a 6% tax increase. I struggled to understand how the District can “miss” paying over a million dollars in invoice(s) and asked the Board for an explanation – how did this happen, whom was responsible and when did they find out? My questions were unanswered.

Mr. Clarke contacted Pennsylvania Department of Education and received copies of the District’s 2019-20 “Special Ed Expenditures” and signed “Summary of Referendum Expenditures filings. And although the District has known about the accounting “timing” issue since sometime before the March 11th Finance Committee meeting, the State has not been notified or the filings correctly updated.

As I stated at the meeting, we all make mistakes – but it’s all about owning your mistake when it’s identified, correcting it and moving on. Shouldn’t that apply to the School Board and the Administration – they knew there was an accounting “timing” issue; an error that could impact the proposed tax increase. Who is responsible and where is the accountability? Why don’t they do something?

Sadly, the takeaway from some School Board members re the accounting “timing” issue was simply to push back, become defensive and claim that they have been completely transparent. What’s that line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”?

So what does the man with the District’s oversight of the financials, Business Manager Art McDonnell, have to say on this accounting matter? Remarkably, he disregards the analysis by Mr. Clarke, indicating that the “timing” of the Special Ed expenses and subsequent payment was inconsequential and; therefore, making no difference in the end result.

When called upon to comment, McDonnell further stated that if anything, the taxpayers would simply have paid a larger tax increase last year if the Special Ed expense and payment had not been delayed to CCIU.

This is crazy talk – and certainly doesn’t sound like sound accounting practice! It seems to me that if the District erroneously missed Special Ed expenses and a million dollar plus payment to CCIU one year, plays catch up the next year, that this practice skews the resulting financials of those effected years and for future years.

As a very wise former school board director stated, “The legislature passed Act 1 of 2006 specifically to limit a school board’s power to tax the electorate unchecked.” Our school board knew about this accounting error at the March 11th Finance Committee meeting and residents questioned them about the issue at last night’s School Board meeting – are they not required to do the right thing? At a minimum, this should require immediate financial review from an independent source and then take necessary action as required, including notifying the Pennsylvania Department of Education..

We elected our school board directors to provide oversight; with independent thought and transparency.

Share or Like:
        
 

Off-Leash Dogs in Public Places — Tredyffrin Township parks, Chester Valley Trail

March 16, 2019
16 Comments

First, please know that I am not a dog hater – in fact, a couple of years ago we lost Mei-Li, our much-loved 13-year old Shih Tzu. However, I may be in the minority among Tredyffrin residents, who do not support the idea of off-leash dogs in public places – unless they are in a fenced pet area.

As background, when I was around two or three years old, my mother was taking me for a walk in the neighborhood. There were sidewalks and she was holding my hand when all of a sudden, an excited dog (probably just a large puppy that seemed enormous to a toddler) raced across the yard, knocking me to the ground and then standing over me like a prized trophy. The neighbor probably thought the incident amusing and just the actions of a playful puppy but I can still recall my terrified, helpless feeling all these many years later. Although not physically hurt by this childhood event; I remain easily frightened by large dogs.

I enjoy walking on the Chester Valley Trail in Tredyffrin Township nearly every day year-round but in the last couple of weeks, I have had two encounters that have me writing this post – off leash dogs. In both instances, the owners had large dogs on the trail without leashes. We were walking in opposing directions and as I got closer, the dogs left their owners’ side and came running towards me. I was petrified and visibly afraid as the dogs jumped at me. In neither case did the owners apologize or even bother to leash their dogs – in fact, one owner commented, “Guess you don’t like dogs”.

Too many dog owners seem to be operating under the false assumption that there is nothing wrong with allowing their dogs to run off leash in on-leash areas such as Chester Valley Trail, because their dogs are “friendly” and won’t harm anyone. Chester Valley Trail posts “rules and regulations” throughout the trail — regarding dogs, the policy states the following, “#21. Pets are permitted, except in picnic areas. They must be restrained on a leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length …”

The fact that dog owners are on the Chester Valley Trail with their dogs off leash had my thinking about Tredyffrin Township’s “off-leash ordinance” for dogs at Teegarden Park passed last fall. So this week, I drove to Teegarden Park around 2 PM and remained at all times on the large asphalt parking lot. I noticed that the park ordinance sign was missing – perhaps, it is being updated with the new ordinance regulations. There was a separate small sign posted by the ‘Friends of Teegarden Park’ in the park message board which addressed the off-lease policy for dogs.

For about 30 minutes, I watched the off-leash dogs and their owners. Up on the slight incline there were six or seven men standing together with eight or nine dogs running all around, most often in groups of two or three. Three different large dogs at various times left the field and raced down to me in the parking lot, barking and jumping. Although many supporters of off-leash at Teegarden tout, “Off Leash and Under Control”, that was not my experience as I stood in the parking lot.

At no time, did any of the dog owners come to the parking lot to get their dogs or call them. Having an unleashed dog rush unwanted and uninvited is a stressful event. I yelled to one dog owner that I was afraid of large dogs (as the animal circled and jumped on me from behind) and his response was “Don’t worry, my dog is very friendly – and will only lick you to death”. Please know that off-leash dogs can be intimidating.

But It was the third time that a dog came running down to the parking lot that was the scariest. An older woman had driven in to Teegarden Park and had an infant in a carriage and a 3 year old little boy. Turns out she was the babysitter and had no dogs. As we stood in the parking lot, discussing whether it was safe for her to take the children to the park playground because of the off-leash dogs, down the incline comes running a very large black dog (without a collar). The dog jumps at the baby carriage, frightening the children. I (who am terrified of big dogs) start yelling trying to distract the dog from the children and to alert the dog owner. Again, the dog owner never comes down to the parking lot and here is the babysitter, myself and two children with a dog barking and running loops around us. Eventually the dog bored of the activity in the parking lot and returned to the other dogs up on the hill. Although I am sure that the owner would say that the dog was just friendly, it was scary nonetheless.

The parks in Tredyffrin Township are to be enjoyed by all of its residents, including Teegarden Park. In my opinion, the newly approved off-leash ordinance at Teegarden Park is difficult, if not impossible to manage and enforce.

Dog owners are required to file an off-leash application with fee (Residents $25/dog; Non-Residents $50/dog). Who is responsible for making sure the dog owners have an application on file (which requires veterinary information, dogs license and vaccination records at registration) and paid annual fee. Off-leash dogs are required to wear registration tags – yet I saw at least one dog at Teegarden Park without a collar. As an aside, is there no concern that registered off-leash dogs at Teegarden may be in contact with unlicensed or un-vaccinated dogs?

Where does the annual revenue for Teegarden Park off-leash registration go?

Although Mill Park (in the western section of Tredyffrin Township) does not have an off-leash ordinance, dog owners routinely let their dogs run at this township park without leashes. In fact, rather than pay the $25 annual fee to legally have their dogs off-leash at Teegarden Park, some residents who oppose the fee have said they will now use Mill Park.

Tredyffrin Township leash law “requires that you pick up after your dog. Allowing your dog to defecate and not removing the waste carries a fine of up to $1,000.” And although the Friends of Teegarden post that dog owners are to “pick up and remove dog waste”; I observed during my short visit that three dog owners did not pick up/remove the dog waste. Who will enforce? With baseball season soon to begin at Teegarden, who will be responsible for maintaining the fields?

According to the Friends of Teegarden sign, dog owners are to keep their animals “out of fenced areas” yet I watched two dogs running around inside the fenced tennis courts at Teegarden Park. In addition, the sign states that dogs “must be under voice control”. For this to work, dog owners need to actually watch their off-leash dogs. Remember on my short visit, three different dogs left the fields, parking and jumping at myself and other visitors in the parking lot. Also, it should be added that a car narrowly missed hitting one of the dogs in the parking lot. At no time, did the dog owners call or retrieve their animals from the parking lot.

In my opinion, the off-leash situation at Teegarden Park is serious and an accident waiting to happen. If you review the township off-leash application form, dog owners must agree to hold Tredyffrin Township harmless from any claim of loss or injury, etc. but where does that leave the residents (without an off-leash dog) who venture to Teegarden Park?

In my opinion, you visit Teegarden Park (and apparently also Mill Park) at your own risk.

Share or Like:
        
 

UPDATE: Catalyst Outdoor Advertising Files an Appeal over Paoli Digital Billboard Decision

February 28, 2019
9 Comments

Just when I thought that the community was home free and that our township would remain free from digital billboards, I find out otherwise!

You may recall that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising (dba “Tredyffrin Outdoor, LLC”) filed two applications in December with Tredyffrin Township – (1) a demolition permit application for the Clockworks building and (2) an application to switch the face of the small billboard (located next to the Clockworks building) to a digital one. Tredyffrin Township denied both of these applications. The demolition permit was denied citing an “incomplete application” – the application was missing the signature of Dale Nelson, the property owner.

The other application submitted by Catalyst was for an “electric lamp changeable copy face” for the existing small free standing advertising sign next to the Clockworks building. There is an existing 30-year lease on the small sign between Catalyst and Dale Nelson.

Last month Matt Baumann, the Zoning Officer for Tredyffrin Township sent Thaddeus Bartkowski a letter denying the application by Catalyst to digitize the current sign on the Clockworks site. The letter included the information about Catalyst’s right to appeal the decision to the township’s Zoning Hearing Board – with a 30-day window to file the appeal.

I learned yesterday that Bartkowski did indeed file an appeal — on the last possible day, Friday, February 22. Yes, just when you thought that the problem was going away, it’s not! With their deep pockets, Catalyst apparently paid $10,000 to go in front of the Zoning Hearing Board and make their case. The next Zoning Hearing Board meeting is Thursday, March 28 and we will have to wait and see if the Catalyst appeal is on the agenda.

In my opinion, digitizing the current sign on the Clockworks property is a precursor to Catalyst going after the two large 20-ft. digital billboards with the reflecting pool. I believe that should Catalyst win their appeal, the other two billboards (Rt. 252/Bear Hill Road and Lancaster Ave across from the BMW dealership) are at imminent risk for digitizing.

It is my understanding that a 6-month agreement of sale was signed between Dale Nelson (owner of Clockworks property) and Bartkowski on December 3, with an expiration date of June 3. No doubt one of the contingencies contained in the sales agreement is the needed digital billboard approval from the township.

Another point in the story is relates to Dale Nelson’s “available” sign located on the Clockworks property. Nelson is trying to rent the second floor of the building (who knew there was a second floor?). At this time, the Clockworks store remains open and its’ business as usual. As the only tenants in the building, their current lease is for the entire building. The owners have not moved and the “clocks sale” does not necessarily mean that the store will relocate.

The battle is not over! And it looks like the remaining BAN the Digital Billboard lawn signs in my garage will be going out for distribution.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Township Denies Two Applications by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising Related to Digital Billboard Project in Paoli!

January 25, 2019
23 Comments

The end of 2018 left many of us in the community with more questions than answers about Tredyffrin Township’s direction regarding the future of the Clockworks building and the proposed digital billboard project at the intersection of Rts 252 and 30 in Paoli. However, the New Year brings exciting news from the township on a couple of fronts.

If you recall, Tredyffrin Township received two applications from Catalyst Outdoor Advertising (dba “Tredyffrin Outdoor, LLC”) on December 18 related to their proposed digital billboard project – (1) a demolition permit application for the Clockworks building and (2) an application to switch the face of the small billboard (located next to the Clockworks building) to a digital one.

This week the public learned at the Board of Supervisors meeting that the Clockworks building demolition permit application was denied, with the township citing an ‘incomplete application’. The Catalyst representatives had submitted the demolition application in December without including the signature of the owner of the property, Dale Nelson.

Thaddeus Bartkowski, the CEO of Catalyst has a signed 30 year lease on the small billboard located on the Clockworks site but does not actually own the property. The lease between Catalyst and Dale E. Nelson, the owner of the property, is only for the small sign located next to the Clockworks building. (The lease is included in the demolition documents). So, then the question becomes how is it possible that Mr. Bartkowski thinks he can demolish a building on property that he doesn’t actually own? Did he think that the township staff review of the demolition application would perhaps not catch the glaring omission?

It is my understanding that a property sale agreement exists between Catalyst and Nelson (the owner of the property) for some future closing date. I have not seen a copy of the sale agreement — however there is no doubt that the agreement and expected closing date is based on certain terms – perhaps a contingency based on township approval for the digital billboard.

And important point to remember is that there is nothing to keep Catalyst from resubmitting the demolition permit application with Dale Nelson’s signature. The township demolition process does not require approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Clockworks building is not protected. I need to restate that Tredyffrin Township does not have a historic preservation ordinance — Clockworks building aside, no historic property is protected from demolition.

But you would have to wonder why Nelson would sign the demolition application on the Clockworks building prior to Catalyst actually purchasing the property. How about this scenario, Dale Nelson signs the demolition permit application, the Clockworks building comes down and Catalyst does not gain approval for the digital billboard. Were Tredyffrin Township to decide not to approve the proposed digital billboard monument, Catalyst may decide not to move forward on the property sale – thus leaving Dale Nelson with an empty lot, no revenue source from the Clockworks building and a community of unhappy residents! To date, Catalyst has not submitted the plans for the digital monument so there’s no action required on the part of the township.

The other application submitted by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising last month was for an “electric lamp changeable copy face” at 1819 Lancaster Ave, Paoli. Catalyst was proposing the digitizing of the existing small free standing advertising sign next to the Clockworks building. Remember, this is the sign with the 30-year lease between Catalyst and Dale Nelson.

We learned yesterday that Matt Baumann, the Zoning Officer for Tredyffrin Township sent Thaddeus Bartkowski a letter denying the application by Catalyst to digitize the current sign on the Clockworks site. The letter states that the proposed sign does not comply with the requirements of an advertising sign and is not permitted on the property. In its application, Catalyst suggests that the sign is an “electric lamp changeable copy face” and the township has determined that the sign is not a changeable copy sign. Catalyst does have the right to appeal the notice through the Zoning Hearing Board within 30 days.

With the denial of the application to digitize the existing sign and a denial on the demolition application of the Clockworks building (albeit they can resubmit with required signature) is it possible that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising will see the handwriting on the wall and take their plans for a digital billboard somewhere else? Will Dale Nelson do some soul-searching and not sign the demolition application?

Although I’m excited that the township leadership has denied the two applications from Catalyst regarding the proposed digital billboard, it needs to be stated that the battle is not over.

And just when I thought that the “Ban the Digital Billboard” signs were safe, I have learned that two were stolen from a resident’s lawn over the weekend – this was the third set of signs stolen from this specific property, just steps from her front door on Old Eagle School Road.

I have additional “Ban” signs ready to go up in the next couple of weeks and I ask that you ask you friends, neighbors and co-workers to sign the “Ban the Digital Billboard” petition on Change.org. (Click here for the link to share).

Paoli, Pennsylvania is not New York City, Chicago or Philadelphia … It’s our community, we love it and don’t want a digital billboard!

 

Share or Like:
        
 

Application Filed to Demolish the Clockworks Building in Paoli + Video Clip of BAN the Digital Billboard Lawn Sign Thief!

December 17, 2018
72 Comments

Tonight was the last meeting of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors for 2018 and the public was met with a pronouncement by solicitor Vince Donahue. He announced that at 4:45 PM TODAY, Catalyst Outdoor Advertising filed two applications with the township – the first application to make the current small billboard at the intersection of Lancaster Ave and Rt. 252 a digital billboard and the second application to DEMOLISH the Clockworks building!

No amount of upset and personal appeal to the supervisors on my part was going to save the Clockworks building! There is NO historic preservation ordinance of protection in Tredyffrin Township. Although the Clockworks building is included in the township’s 2003 historic preservation survey, it is meaningless – we do NOT protect our historic buildings in Tredyffrin Township.

The sadness over the loss of this Brognard Okie building and its memories for many of the residents, is beyond words for me. To live in an area seeped in history, and calling a 300+ year old house my home, yet we do nothing to save our old buildings. My outburst at the meeting over the news was met only with stares from the supervisors – no comment from Chair Heather Greenberg (her last meeting tonight as chair) or from any of the others.

Back when the 18th century original Pugh Road farmhouse application to demolish was approved within 24 hours (and subsequently demolished), I asked the township for a waiting period for all historic properties contained in the historic resource survey. I guess the clock will start to tick on the Clockworks demolition application starting tomorrow.

Apparently, the application to turn the small static billboard digital will take some legal review according to the township solicitor. To be really clear here — anyone who doesn’t think that that demolishing the Clockworks building isn’t a precursor to two large digital billboards at this site needs to reconsider their position!

As I said to the supervisors tonight, this is no Merry Christmas news for Pattye Benson and the many other people in this township who care about our local history. Nearly 4,000 people signed the Change.org petition to BAN the Digital Billboard and Save the Clockworks Building in Paoli. None of it mattered — what a tremendous waste of time and effort! I’m just so sad.

At the suggestion of the Tredyffrin Township Police Chief Mike Beaty, I am releasing the video of stolen BAN the Digital Billboard lawn signs from private property. To date there were 93 lawn signs stolen from private property and without any other leads, I have decided to release the video from Dec. 3 at 9:34 AM. It would be great if we could find the person responsible for the thefts and maybe that road will help us fight back against the digital billboard and (I know that it’s a long shot!) maybe help save the Clockworks building if we can find a connection.

Please click on the link below — the police have sent the video out for enhancement but they were not able to find anything further than is on the video. But we’ve got many tech savvy people in the area, so maybe you will be able to help with the video clip.

For example, run the video full screen and take some screen shots at the key moments, zoom in, look at the car (hoping for an ID on make/color) and the person and if you can help identify, immediately call the police and let me know.

 

Share or Like:
        
 

How many assisted living facilities does Tredyffrin Township need/want? Is the idea “build it and they will come”?

December 17, 2018
15 Comments

Another proposal for an assisted living facility in Tredyffrin Township is on the Planning Commission agenda for Thursday, December 20 – this time its Russell Road in Paoli.

My first thought is how many assisted living facilities is enough? For many years, the township only had one – Highgate at Paoli Point with 80 apartments.

Then came the community battle over the long-abandoned Jimmy Duffy property on Lancaster Avenue in Berwyn and the subsequent construction of Daylesford Crossing, a 3-story assisted living facility by Sage Senior Living which opened August 2015 with 93 apartments.

The approval for the Daylesford Crossing project was a long, drawn out process in 2012 which required a text amendment to zoning to permit senior living facilities as a by-right use in C-1 (commercial) zoning. It was argued at the time that the zoning change to C-1 was ‘spot-zoning’ to accommodate this specific project. Others, including myself, questioned what this change would mean for future C-1 development in the township.

Meeting with success with the development of Daylesford Crossing, Sage Senior Living is building Echo Lake at Atwater in the western part of Tredyffrin Township. Echo Lake’s senior living is a massive 3-story, 250-apartment property with 160 independent living apartments and 90 assisted living and memory care apartments, set to open in January 2019.

And then we have under construction in Devon (close to Whole Foods) Brightview Senior Living, the gigantic 450+ ft. long, five-story, 55-ft high building totally 181,000 sq. ft. on E. Conestoga. (As a reference point, Daylesford Crossing on Lancaster Ave. is approx. 80,000 sq. ft.). When completed Brightview Senior Living will have 196 beds.

During the last six years, the township has grown from one assisted living facility (Highgate at Paoli Pointe) to four – Daylesford Crossing, Echo Lake and under construction Brightview. Developers are flocking to the township with their assisted living proposals. Earlier this year, the township Planning Commissioners reviewed an assisted living facility proposal for the Aquilante Catering property on Cassatt Road. The 300 bed project was met with an organized effort of neighbor opposition and the plans appear to have been withdrawn.

Now, this coming week finds another proposed assisted living facility in front of the Planning Commission. Solera Senior Living has submitted a preliminary land development project for Russell Road in Paoli. Zoned C-1, the applicant wishes to demolish two existing office buildings (Synthes), consolidate three separate parcels and construct a 3-story, 116 bed assisted living facility. For those that may not know – Russell Road connects to Maple and Old Lancaster Avenues. Another developer seeking to build an assisted living facility in the township as a ‘by-right’ use in C-1 zoning.

Unlike the location of Daylesford Crossing on 4-lane Lancaster Avenue, Russell Road is a narrow residential street in Paoli. The proposed 3-story assisted living facility on Russell Road would be at higher elevation than the residential homes which sit in the valley below the planned construction.

Russell Road has no curbing and its resident’s battle major stormwater issues every time its rains – I cannot imagine how a large assisted living building and the associated additional stormwater runoff could possibly be managed. In addition to stormwater problems, placing a massive assisted living facility in the middle of this community is going to threaten the quality of life for the neighborhood, change its character and increase traffic.

There are many reasons that I do not support an assisted living facility at the Russell Road location but an obvious question should also be asked – does the township really need another one of these facilities? Daylesford Crossing is not fully occupied and it opened over 3 years ago – plus Echo Lake opens next month and presumably Brightview sometime in 2019. When is enough – enough? Or is it a case of “build it, and they will come”?

Another factor that needs to be considered with these proposed redevelopment projects (and sadly one that is often overlooked) is our local volunteer fire companies and emergency responders. Already burdened with staffing and funding needs, how are they supposed to keep up the increased demands of these assisted living facilities? Is Paoli Fire Company and Berwyn Fire Company notified when these types of land development proposals are under consideration?

Here’s the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, December 20, 7 PM at the township building.

Share or Like:
        
 

Updates: BAN the Digital Billboard, CHS Class of 2019 to wear black, Preliminary budget 6.1% tax increase …

December 10, 2018
31 Comments

The BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli campaign is in a holding pattern – the community has gone several days without a stolen lawn sign. The stolen BAN sign count currently stands at 93 (value of $700!) At the last supervisors meeting during the citizen comment period, several homeowners spoke out about the stolen signs and the proposed digital billboard. A stalemate ensued and we were told it was a legal matter and/or there was no movement.

All of this is very interesting, given that the public was told in October that there was a ‘draft agreement’ regarding the digital billboard. I’m confident that the battle is far from over — there are 3,500+ signatures on the anti-digital billboard petition and additional BAN signs waiting to go up. In January, the majority on the Board of Supervisors shifts for the first time in township history from the Republicans to Democrats and Republican Heather Greenberg will no longer be chair. In the words of Bob Dylan, “The times they are a changin’” …

During the last few days, I have received a couple of emails regarding the T/E School District that are of interest. The first is about the color of the Conestoga High School graduation gowns. Historically, the graduation gowns at CHS have been white and maroon but it looks like a break with tradition is afoot – the Class of 2019 will all wear black. The transgender graduates were cited as the reason to eliminate the 2 colors but oddly, the senior photos were already taken in the white and maroon gowns.

I received an email from resident Ray Clarke with the first line, “Time to pay attention to the deliberations on West Valley Road at the TESD offices …” which got my attention. Ray writes,

There are two important TESD Committee meetings next week. Not final decisions, but windows into early thinking and opportunities to influence the evolution of the education program and the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

On Monday at 7pm, the Finance Committee will agree parameters for the borrowing of $30 million to spend on capital items such as air conditioning the elementary schools and (in part) expanding the high school (see below). They will also take a look at the preliminary budget which calls for: a spending increase of $9 million (6.25%), a total tax increase of 6.1%, including a special education tax increase of 3.6% ($4.1 million). Special education expenses in 2017/18 increased by $4.6 million over 2016/17, but it’s not clear how that can translate to such a large tax increase above the 2.3% inflation index. It’s noteworthy that this is proposed in an environment where inflation, social security increases, etc. are about 2.5%. History has shown that a motivated School Board can work to ameliorate the impact on taxpayers, but this absolutely requires community vigilance. (Click here for agenda).

On Tuesday at 7pm, the Facilities Committee will take a first look at possible designs for the Conestoga High School expansion. Options being reviewed are “Courtyard” and “Atrium” designs for an expansion of the school to the east along Old State Road, and two options for expansion of parking to the woodland to the north. No information on costs until decisions among the options are made and costed, but it is maybe noteworthy that $4.6 million of otherwise needed projects are to be included in the overall project – likely to total in the tens of millions of dollars. Construction to occur from March 2020 to August 2021. (Click here for agenda).

An important time for our school district and hopefully the community will be accordingly engaged.

A preliminary budget with a tax increase of 6.1% to the homeowners! What!? I understand that this is in the preliminary discussion stages but still, that is staggering. Ray is absolutely correct, the community needs to get engaged. This will be the fifteenth year in a row of school tax increases and will likely mark the largest tax increase in that same period!

As I updated my chart of T/E School District yearly tax increases (2004-05 was the last zero tax increase year!), what would school officials give for the perennial increase? Increased enrollment (?) rising pension, contractual and special-education costs – state and federal mandates? Instead of being told each year that the average tax increase is some number like $123 (and frankly, I’ve never been able to find the person with the ‘average’ tax increase), how about looking at how much this yearly tax increase has cost the taxpayers for the last fifteen years!

Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall and school taxes are set to rise … again! Guess the question is, can the school district officials bring down the preliminary budget increase of 6.1%? And with the high school expansion plans on the horizon, how does the school board plan to pay for the capital spending project? New bond initiatives?

  • 2019-20: Preliminary budget indicates 6.1%
  • 2018-19: 2.42%
  • 2017-18: 3.2%
  • 2016-17: 3.6%
  • 2015-16: 3.81%
  • 2014-15: 3.4%
  • 2013-14: 1.7%
  • 2012-13: 3.3%
  • 2011-12: 3.77%
  • 2010-11: 2.9%
  • 2009-10: 2.95%
  • 2008-09: 4.37%
  • 2007-08: 3.37%
  • 2006-07: 3.90%
  • 2005-06: 1.40%
  • 2004-05: Zero Tax Increase
Share or Like:
        
 

Theft of ‘BAN the Digital Billboard’ signs from private property throughout Tredyffrin — At Least 60 Signs Stolen

November 27, 2018
46 Comments

This is the post I didn’t want to write …

I have lived here for many years and I have never seen a community and its residents so united on any single issue as they are in their opposition to the proposed digital billboard in Paoli! The strong anti-digital billboard sentiment was the reason that the social media campaign was mounted – Change.org petition (over 3,300 signatures), dedicated Facebook page and a GoFundMe account to help offset the price of BAN the Digital Billboard print materials and lawn signs. Through generous donations of residents two hundred and fifty signs were ordered and delivered in early November.

Not wanting to risk people accidentally picking up the BAN lawn signs with the political campaign signs post-election, I waited until after November 6 before distributing. After notifying residents that I had the signs, the decision was made to initially only place on private properties. I hand delivered the signs to make certain that they were safely in place. Since Election Day, approximately 100 signs were put on private property throughout Tredyffrin Township – Paoli, Malvern, Devon, Berwyn and some went to Easttown.

A few days after posting BAN lawn signs, I was notified by residents that a few had disappeared. I didn’t think much about it and quickly replaced the signs. However, by the time we got to the second week in November, it was becoming obvious that many signs were gone. The phone calls and emails were picking up from residents upset that their signs were taken – and then two signs were stolen from my own property.

As the numbers in missing BAN signs grew throughout the township, it was clear that this was not a teenage prank but rather trespassing, vandalism and theft of private property. I filed a police report as did at least two others. I did a drive around and put together a list of stolen signs, street by street. (Remember I knew the locations because I had placed the signs myself).

The initial list of stolen BAN signs was forwarded to Tredyffrin Police Chief Beaty on Friday, Nov. 16, about ten days since the first signs went up. The list of stolen BAN signs has continued to grow; to date at least 60 signs stolen (and in less than three weeks!) The value of the stolen signs is over $500.

That’s right – In less than three weeks the BAN the Digital Billboard signs have all but disappeared — trespassing, vandalism and theft of personal property. This is not a joke – 60 signs have been stolen!

Residents who have had their BAN signs stolen are extremely upset. There are very few ways that the public can make their opposition to the proposed digital billboard known – many have called or written supervisors and township officials, signed and shared the Change.org petition and then in the last few weeks put up the lawn signs on their private property to show their opposition

If you look around the township, you will see left over political campaign signs, real estate signs for new developments that are not in the township, signs looking for Kraft bus drivers, firewood and painting advertising signs – you name it – you will see these signs are all over in public areas of the township. Those signs are not placed on private township resident’s property and yet they remain untouched, some standing for months on end.

And here we have at least 60 signs on private property of township tax payers – and they are all stolen.

One resident on Conestoga Road who filed a police report for theft of their Ban the Digital Billboard lawn sign asked me for a replacement sign which I delivered. Fearing the same outcome as the old BAN sign, those homeowners actually went to the hardware store and bought wooden stakes to secure their replacement sign – to see if that would dissuade the trespasser from coming on their property again.

Many of the folks who have had signs stolen are older and some live alone. One resident, who lives alone, said that it scared her that someone had come onto her private property just 10 feet from her front door and stole her two BAN signs. But again – because this township resident so strongly opposes the proposed digital billboard she too requested (and I delivered) two replacement yard signs.

To be clear, most of these 60 stolen signs were located on private property – removed from the front yards of homes throughout Tredyffrin Township.

My home telephone number is on the BAN the Digital Billboard signs. As result, I have answered countless phone calls and emails from residents all seeking information and update on this important issue. The public was kept in the dark about the proposed digital billboard for well over a year and now that that the issue has surfaced residents want and expect updates.

Last Monday I went to Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting seeking answers, updates, something, anything! During the citizen comment section, I read a prepared 3 page statement – about the township-wide theft of the BAN signs and asking for an update on the digital billboard.

Residents have no idea where our township supervisors actually stand on the proposed digital billboard with the exception of newly elected supervisor Mark Freed. Mark (who was in the audience) and his opponent Judy DiFilippo answered questions before the election. I posted the answers on Community Matters – and both candidates responded opposing the proposed digital billboard.

At the meeting, the supervisors remained silent with no response to the stolen signs or to my request for an update on the proposed digital billboard. To his credit, supervisor Paul Olson did ask me “who did I think was taking the signs” – I sidestepped the question with a response of “who” had the most to lose from the BAN the Digital Billboard campaign. Several times I commented that the theft of private property is not a joke – one supervisor (who will remain nameless) had a smirk on his face the entire time suggesting that he found the issue amusing.

Sadly, I can report that my statement and questions to the supervisors regarding the proposed digital billboard elicited no response.The township solicitor once again stated that the public would be given advance notice when the digital billboard was back on the agenda.

Let’s not forget that it was the solicitor who announced that there was a draft agreement between the township and Catalyst Outdoor Advertising regarding the digital billboard. As I stated at the meeting, there are over 100 BAN yard signs remaining in my garage – when I feel that it’s safe they will begin to reappear.

The Tredyffrin Township Police Department is now actively involved in the investigation. If you have had a sign stolen, Police Chief Beaty suggested folks call the police number (610-647-1440) and an officer will respond to take the report.

The BAN the Digital Billboard campaign and the theft of yard signs may seem like a joke to some or at least to one supervisor — but I assure you that the anti-digital billboard sentiment of this community is not going away! Although frustrated and disappointed, we will continue to fight back!

———————————————————–

For those that are interested, here’s the list by street of signs stolen. Please let me know if you know of others and I will add to the list.

  • Swedesford Road – 4 signs (including 2 on my personal property)
  • Biddle Road – 1 sign
  • Valley Road – 3 signs
  • Valley Road – 2 signs
  • Central Avenue – 8 signs
  • Maple Avenue – 4 signs
  • Russell Road – 4 signs
  • Old Lancaster Ave – 2 signs
  • Glen Ave – 1 sign
  • Old Eagle School Road – 2 signs
  • Conestoga Road – 2 signs
  • Bear Hill Road – 5 signs
  • Lancaster Avenue – 6 signs
  • Valley Forge Road – 1 sign
  • Valley Forge Road – 1 sign
  • Upper Gulph Road – 4 signs
  • 50 BAN Signs stolen in Tredyffrin Township + 10 Signs stolen in Easttown Township
  • TOTAL of 60 BAN Signs Stolen in 3 weeks
Share or Like:
        
 

BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli Yard Signs + 3,100 Signatures on Change.org Petition

November 2, 2018
14 Comments

 

The BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli yard signs arrived and are finding homes primarily on private property until post-Election (Otherwise, they are lost in the sea of political campaign signs).

The allocation of the lawn signs began with GoFundMe donors living in single family homes. One such location is a beautiful property on Grubb Road in Malvern – the owners support the ban the digital billboard campaign and requested a sign. I delivered and placed the sign at the driveway’s edge; a perfect location with no political signs in sight. Sadly, the BAN yard sign was stolen from this private home three days later. Troubled by the action but undeterred, the owners have requested two more BAN signs.

The Change.org petition continues to gain daily supporters – to date there are 3,100 signatures of those who oppose the digital billboard. In addition to local residents expressing their opposition, I am fielding calls from Ardmore to Villanova. Many residents are concerned that if Tredyffrin Township supervisors fall to the demands of Catalyst Outdoor Advertising CEO Thaddeus Bartkowski, it will simply be a matter of time before the digital billboards dot the entire Main Line.

Remember, this proposed welcome to Tredyffrin Township monument is actually two 20-ft. high blinking billboards with a reflecting pool to be located on the small site where the Clockworks building currently stands.

Although certain township supervisors would have the public believe otherwise, there is no financial gain for Tredyffrin Township and its taxpayers if this proposed digital billboard is approved. Township solicitor Vince Donohue stated at the last supervisors meeting that this proposed digital billboard is income neutral. Catalyst is not purchasing the property (no transfer tax) he is leasing the property — no additional money coming to the township for this digital billboard!

People ask me what they can do to help … write an email to the Board of Supervisors, BOS@tredyffrin.org, sign the Change.org petition, contribute to GoFundMe and most importantly,share the digital billboard information with neighbors and friends and plan to attend Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting (when the digital billboard appears on the agenda).

Please contact me at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com for a yard sign if your home or business is in a traffic visible location. Also email if you would like a pdf of the BAN the Digital Billboard flyer for distribution.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Special Election Supervisor candidates – Where do they stand on the digital billboard, historic preservation ordinance and transparency? Know before you vote!

October 21, 2018
31 Comments

How many of you know that there is a special election on November 6 to fill an at-large seat on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors? And that for the first time in township history, both candidates running to fill the vacancy are former supervisors!

The last time that there was a special election on the ballot in Tredyffrin Township was in May 2011; a highly contested race between Mike Heaberg (R) and Molly Duffy (D) to fill an interim supervisor seat, as a result of Warren Kampf’s election as PA State Representative. If you recall, the special election results were so close that the winner’s name changed when malfunctioning voting machines required ballot hand counting. Ultimately, Heaberg was declared the victor and in the general election match-up race the same year, he won a regular 4-year term.

Now seven and a half years later, township residents will be choosing a supervisor in the special election on Nov. 6. In the sea of political campaign lawn signs are a couple of locally familiar names – Republican Judy DiFilippo and Democrat Mark Freed are the special election candidates running to fill the vacated at-large seat on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors.

Republican Sean Moir, a second term supervisor abruptly resigned last month, having moved from the township and therefore no longer eligible to serve. The term for the vacated seat runs through 2019. The good news for residents is that both DiFilippo and Freed are seasoned township supervisors – Judy served for twenty years, six as its chair and Mark completed one four year term (2014-17).

Whoever wins the upcoming election will determine the party majority on the Board of Supervisors. With the departure of Moir (R), there are three Republicans (Heather Greenberg, Paul Olson and Trip Lukens (and three Democrats (Murph Wysocki, Matt Holt and Kevin O’Nell) currently serving. Because so often local township votes come down on party lines, the impact of who fills the seventh seat could be significant and if Freed wins, it will mark the first time in township history for a Democrat-majority board of supervisors.

The township and its residents is embroiled in a serious issue that would forever change the landscape and village feel of Paoli – the proposed digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Ave. I remain troubled that as a community we were kept in the dark for 18-24 months while township supervisors discussed the proposed digital billboard. The public only learned at the 11th hour with the township solicitor Vince Donohue using words like “negotiations” and “settlement agreement” in advance of the Catalyst presentation. I, like many others took that to mean that the digital billboard was a fait accompli.

With nearly 2,500 signatures showing support for the Change.org petition to “BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli”) and a GoFundMe exceeding its goal, the community is fully engaged. The laws signs are scheduled for delivery this week!

It is critical that voters know where special election supervisor candidates DiFilippo and Freed stand on important township issues – the proposed digital billboard, historic preservation ordinance and transparency in local government. The candidates received 3 questions from me and were asked to respond in 100 words or less to each question. The following are the questions and the candidate responses, in the order received.

Question #1: As you are aware, the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors is entertaining a proposal to construct a digital billboard at the intersection of Rt. 252 and Lancaster Ave. in Paoli. The community has been told by the township solicitor that Catalyst Outdoor Advertising will initiate legal proceedings if the digital billboard is not approved. If you are elected before the vote occurs, how will vote and why.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: I do not support the proposal by Catalyst Outdoor Advertising to construct digital billboards at the Route 252/Lancaster Avenue intersection. In addition to the concern for safety of the traveling public, in my opinion, the mass of the signs proposed is not appropriate on that site. They do not reflect the overall aesthetic desired in Tredyffrin and do not respect the existing structure and its significance. If there is a deficiency in the Township’s sign ordinance relating to digital signs, a moratorium should be considered on any future applications for digital billboard signs until the ordinance is corrected.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: I oppose the Catalyst digital billboard proposal. This billboard is wrong for Tredyffrin Township and would result in the destruction of a valued historic resource. I have opposed the billboard since the concept was first floated by Catalyst when I was on the Board of Supervisors. I advised both my fellow Board members and Catalyst of my grave concerns. I have not seen anything in the recent presentations to change my opinion and remain opposed to Catalyst’s proposal.

Question #2: Unlike most Main Line townships, Tredyffrin does not currently have a historic preservation ordinance. Please comment as to whether or not you would support such a township ordinance and why.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: The Township has an award-winning 2003 Historic Resource Survey that lists hundreds of historic buildings and it explains the historic and/or architectural significance for each. Valley Forge National Historical Park lies within Tredyffrin. We have a significant link to the founding of our country. We should be proud to share that history. I support the creation of an ordinance that appreciates and protects our most significant historic resources. Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code and Chester County’s Planning Commission have tooIs available to help us do that, including adaptive reuse. We can protect historic resources and still respect an individual’s property rights.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: I support a historic preservation ordinance that protects our Township’s valued historic resources. We must recognize Tredyffrin’s rich historic heritage. We must also be mindful of the rights of the owners of historic resources. I understand that the Historical Commission has proposed an ordinance amendment that would prohibit the demolition of designated historic resources unless reviewed by the Historical Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. This amendment would prevent the issuance of over-the-counter demolition permits that have resulted in almost immediate demolition of our historic resources. It would be a significant step forward.

Question #3: The support for openness and transparency in local government often appears on candidate campaign literature. What does it mean to you for local government to be open and transparent? Please be specific.

Candidate Judy DiFilippo (R) response: Transparency means you abide by the Sunshine Law. Certain matters dealing with Township personnel or pending litigation can be discussed in Executive Session by the Board and the Solicitor. When Executive Session meetings are held, it is announced during the Public Meeting. All Township Commissions, Advisory Councils, and Boards must abide by the Sunshine Law as well because their decisions and recommendations also impact the Township. Open discussion by the Board and with the public is the only place for decision-making. The public should be able to rely upon that and upon the trust given to the individuals they elect.

Candidate Mark Freed (D) response: To me, openness and transparency mean providing the public with information in a timely manner, giving the public the opportunity to express their views at public meetings and elsewhere, listening respectfully, responding forthrightly, and letting the public know that their voices have been heard and respected. They mean being clear and direct with the public about the Board’s decision-making process. They mean remembering that Board members serve the public.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme