Pattye Benson

Community Matters

T/E School District and Teacher’s Union … ‘Status Quo’

July 8, 2012
50 Comments

The June 30, 2012 contract deadline for the T/E teachers came and went with no new contract signed. Therefore, as of July 1, the School District and the teachers union, TEEA are now in status quo. This means that the T/E teachers’ salaries will be frozen at their salary level based on their 2011-12 salary until a new contract is signed.

According to the School District website, “… the teachers will continue to receive their salary at the current rate until the earlier of (1) a strike or lockout within the terms of Act 88 of 1992; or (2) the entry into a new contract.”

Also during the status quo period, the teachers health care benefit plan remains intact based on the expired contract, until a new contract is signed between the School Board and TEEA.

The School Board passed the 2012-13 TESD budget in June, which includes a property tax increase of 3.3%, or .6154 mills – equating to approx. $3 million revenue. The 3% tax increase will translate to an annual increase to homeowners in T/E of about $155.

Former T/E School Board member Andrea Felkins created the following graphs with descriptions below each graph for Community Matters readers. When we discuss the benefits, salary and pension costs of the District, it is difficult for some (myself included) to fully grasp the magnitude of the situation. Through the use of the graphs, the data is more organized and easier to understand. When you view the data through Andrea’s graphs, it is much clearer the role that each of the three components play in the budget, especially as the School District moves forward. It should be noted that these graphs assume no salary increases.

Based on the final budget presentation, this is just a depiction of the PSERS and the BENEFITS numbers for the next few years. It’s why I advocate a major change in the benefit plan – knocking $5M off the expenditures annually.

 

Based on holding salaries constant, while PSERS is climbing, benefits stay well ahead of the PSERS contribution.

 

Each piece of the budget deserves scrutiny. This graph shows that PSERS takes a bigger piece each year, but the other components dwarf the PSERS costs.

Share or Like:
        
 

Go Green … 3rd Annual Eco-Tour Tomorrow in Tredyffrin!

July 6, 2012
Comments

Tomorrow marks the third year for the Tredyffrin Backyard Eco-Tour — Saturday, July 7, eight eco-gardeners in and around Tredyffrin will welcome the public in to their backyards.

The Tredyffrin Backyard Eco Tour will offer gardeners, aspiring gardeners or people who want to learn more about gardening in an environmentally friendly way, an opportunity to see some of the most creative uses of natural landscapes. Living in a sustainable community nowadays is becoming more important as our water and non-renewable resources are becoming scarcer.

  • Tour the gold certified “green” building at Jenkins Arboretum
  • Discover the Discovery Garden at Heritage School (fun for kids)
  • How to install a small pond or water feature in your yard
  • Find out about implementing solar and geothermal energy for homes
  • See 3 Certified Wildlife Habitats and learn how to create your own
  • Learn about locally native plants – trees, shrubs, perennials, vines, etc.
  • Learn how to save $$ on fertilizers, herbicides, lawn care & maintenance

This is a great chance to learn about using native plants, renewable energy, and sustainable practices in your own home and garden. Eco-gardens prove that you can have a landscape that is beautiful and unique – and gentle on the environment. Not to be missed, the tour will provide visitors with plenty of inspiring ideas for their own gardens.

DATE: Saturday, July 7th (rain or shine)

TIME: 10 am to 4 pm (arrive & depart on your own schedule)

STARTING LOCATION: Purchase your “badge” and get map & directions at Tredyffrin Township Library parking lot (582 Upper Gulph Rd., Strafford/Wayne, PA 19087) from 9:45 am to 3:00 pm

COST: $10 per adult, children under 18 free

Share or Like:
        
 

Constitutional Conversations in Tredyffrin Township

July 2, 2012
29 Comments

What do you get when you mix a Republican T/E School Board member with a recently elected Tredyffrin Township Republican committee person? The answer, as I discovered on Saturday, is a new township cable show, ‘Constitutional Conversations’ co-hosted by T/E School Board member Dr. Rich Brake and M-4 Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee man Dennis Gallagher.

Flipping TV channels, I was surprised to see Rich Brake on a township cable show. I caught the last 5 minutes of Constitutional Conversations and heard Gallagher mention that this was “In Order for Form a More Perfect Union”, Part 1 of a 5-part series on the Constitution, co-hosted by Brake and Gallagher

I discovered that this new cable show, which made its debut on Thursday, June 28, has an associated blog called Constitutional Conversations, www.constitutional-conversations.com where you can watch the show’s segments. The site also offers some background on the co-hosts and the background of their show. According to their blog,

“ … Constitutional Conversations was conceived at the grassroots level in Tredyffrin Township in Chester County, PA. In the latter part of 2011 Dr. Richard Brake, a resident of Tredyffrin and co-host of Constitutional Conversations, gave a lecture on the Constitution which was attended by some Tredyffrin community leaders. After the lecture the township leaders approached Dr. Brake requesting him to produce a series on the Constitution for the township’s public access television station. They felt that such a series would be an excellent educational opportunity for the township residents and also a wise use of the township’s public access television facilities.

Subsequently Dr. Brake collaborated with Dennis Gallagher, also a resident of Tredyffrin, to produce a five part series on the Constitution entitled Constitutional Conversations. The purpose of this series is to tell the story behind how America’s Constitution came into being, the debates amongst America’s founding fathers as to its design, and the various debates throughout America’s history that continue up to today as to how America’s Constitution should be interpreted in our modern society.”

Most of us know Rich Brake as a member of the T/E School Board. In addition to his elected position, Brake serves as the National Director of Education at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, DE. According to their website, “ISI seeks to enhance the rising generation’s knowledge of our nation’s founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms.” Brake is listed online as a member of two local Tea Party groups, Chester County Patriots and Valley Forge Patriots. Brake and I have been playing ‘email tag’ over the last month, trying to schedule a meeting to discuss a Constitution class he was giving for local TTGOP committee people and his involvement in the Tea Party movement (The June Constitution class was ultimately cancelled).

I was not familiar with Dennis Gallagher except that the show bio indicates is the TTRC Committeeman for M-4, which includes part of Chesterbrook. In the last election, Gallagher ousted Jim Bailey (a friend of mine) by a very small margin, to serve as Republican M-4 Committeeman. The cable show identified Gallagher as a ‘Constitution Scholar’ and a bit of research indicated that he is the founder and editor of Political Policy, www.politicalpolicy.net, a blog whose “ … mission is to advance traditional conservatism and preserve America’s First Principles.”

It appears that Gallagher and Brake may have been blood brothers in a former life … apparently sharing similar views on traditional conservatism, limited government and Founding Father principles, they have come together for ‘Constitutional Conversations’ to discuss and educate the public on the Constitution. Looking ahead to upcoming topics to be discussed on the cable show, they have scheduled Part 5: Health Care and the Constitution for August 20.

In last week’s landmark ruling, the Supreme Court announced that in a 5-4 decision (with Justice Kennedy dissenting and Chief Justice Roberts writing the decision) that Obamacare, for the most part is constitutional. It could be interesting to hear the discussion of the health care decision by the Supreme Court discussed by Brake and Gallagher in the final segment of Constitutional Conversations.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Update: For the first time since I began Community Matters nearly 3 years ago, I substantially edited an article after it was posted. Originally when I posted this article on ‘Constitutional Conversations’, I included comments from local attorney John Petersen. Within a span of less than 24 hours, I received some negative comments and emails about my post and Petersen’s remarks. As a result, I made the decision to edit the post and remove his comments.

I need to be clear … Mr. Petersen did not volunteer to give his remarks on this post, I asked for his comments on Constitutional Conversations and then posted those comments. However today, I made the decision to remove his remarks along with the associated comments. Regrettably, I did not notify Mr. Petersen until after I removed his remarks. As a result of my actions and decision to remove his comments and associated comments, Mr. Petersen wants to set the record straight on this matter and I am honoring that request. Below are Mr. Petersen’s new updated remarks on this blog post.

I’d like to respond to the comments re: the objections over my solicited comments re: Messer’s Brake and Gallagher and their foray into the world constitutional analysis. Accordingly, I’m happy to provide the substance of my point here.

Context is everything. So… when folks look at the “Constitutional Conversations”, they should to look at that in the context of these items:

Rich Brake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSkd63MnntA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPbFY8PJ8cs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn5RTnqyPAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkCa9wREIs

Dennis Gallagher:
http://www.politicalpolicy.net/
https://twitter.com/#!/grandestparty

If you are going to be considered a “Scholar” – then the body of your work, your statements, etc needs to be looked at in its entirely. You cannot simply cherry pick the things you want.

So…if we are going to evaluate, then let’s evaluate the whole cloth. If you view the cable show on its own, in a vacuum, then you lack the necessary context of what these guys are about. They are quite clever – starting with the seemingly innocuous historical facts. But look how it ends – with health care? It’s not like they leave these extreme political positions at the door. They have a right to say what they want. Folks have a right to be fully informed about what these guys stand for and that their real agenda is advancing their own political view points. It’s kind of ironic when much of what they say is about how the “Left” has captured the media, academia, etc. It’s actually more hypocritical than ironic. That was MY point – that these guys are not really acting in the role of “Constitutional Scholar”. Rather, they are acting as covert politicos that are using the constitutional topic as a pre-text. One may say “Gee John, that’s just YOUR opinion.” To that, I’d say “Yes, it’s my opinion, but it is an informed opinion.” I’d also say to those same people “You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.” My only exception to this are places like school board meetings where recently, Brake has decided to use that platform as part of his “Constitutional Scholar” outlet. I think that is way out-of-bounds.

With that, let’s confront the question of whether these two guys are “Constitutional Scholars.” This matter needs to be settled before it is determined whether getting into the sum and substance of these shows is warranted. If one can argue that these two are not constitutional scholars in spite of the fact that they call themselves that, we can settle the matter right there. That would seem to me to be a reasonable approach.

As to whether they are “Constitutional Scholars” – I’d have to ask them for their credentials. I get the fact that Brake has a PhD – in American Politics. I get that he knows a lot of historical facts. But what I also get is that much of what he says is laced with a very specific political agenda. For backup on that assertion, I cite the YouTube links listed above.

As for Gallagher, sorry to have to be the voice of reason here, but part way through an online school for an MA in History with a concentration in American History simply does not rate one the title of “Constitutional Scholar.” That, coupled with his tweets, blog posts, etc – give evidence to what is also a very definite political viewpoint that are clearly, deep rooted beliefs.

Note, I’m not judging Gallagher’s and Brake’s political view points. I’m indifferent as their viewpoints don’t affect me one bit. I don’t agree with them, but that is not the point. They have every right to express their view points. That said, one of them is an elected official and one of them is an elected committeeman. They have direct involvement in the political process which makes them public/semi-public personalities. When you place your views in the market place of ideas, you invite scrutiny. Whether you are able to withstand/tolerate that scrutiny is another matter.

To be a constitutional scholar, you need to be a lawyer, a law professor and somebody who spends the bulk of their professional life in that arena. Likely, you were a SCOTUS clerk or at the very least, a clerk at the Court of Appeals. You likely have written a horn book and have NUMEROUS law review articles. You do that, you are a constitutional scholar. People like Erwin Chemerinsky, Jonathan Turley, Lawrence Lessig, Laurance Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Akhil Amar, etc. These folks are the real deal. I’m a lawyer and have studied constitutional law – and I don’t consider myself even close to being a constitutional scholar. And based on the aforementioned criteria, neither is Brake nor Gallagher. In my opinion, it says a lot about a person who is willing to have a label applied to them that they have not earned. They are certainly not shy about expressing their opinion on their forum. They should “Scholarly” enough to withstand some criticism. Certainly, Dr. Brake had to do that when he had to defend his dissertation. Shying away from the criticism and not realizing it’s a two-way street says a lot about a person. It’s one thing to lecture and get into 1-way conversations. I think Dr. Brake would cite that is a problem with the “Liberal Academic Establishment.”

And with that, since they are not Constitutional Scholars, I really don’t need to get into the sum and substance of what they are talking about. But if called upon to do so, I’m more than happy to engage.

Share or Like:
        
 

TE School District … Teacher Contract Costing

June 28, 2012
25 Comments

Keith Knauss, Unionville-Chadds Ford School District school board member, and regular contributor to Community Matters, has written ‘TE Contract Costing’ that may help us all better understand the teacher-school board contract negotiations process and the reasons for certain decisions. I thank Keith for his research and for sharing the information with us. I have provided an overview below along with my comments. (If you have a problem reading the numbers in the tables, click on the graphic and a larger version will open in a new window.)

In his opening remarks, Knauss states …

“ … Understanding contracts has taken on new importance since Act 1 of 2006. Previous to Act 1, school boards could negotiate contracts and raise taxes to whatever level was necessary to balance the budget. Since Act 1, many districts have had to, with great reluctance, reduce staff and programs to keep budgets within the limits of the ‘cap’.”

Employee compensation is the major factor determining the size of a school district budget and, subsequently the real estate tax rate increase. If the District budget is to be balanced under the restrictions of Act 1, close attention must be paid to the terms of the contracts.

In the following table, Knauss presents the TE offer summary – the initial 1/9/12 offer by TEEA, the TE School Board 2/9/12 offer and TEEA 6/18/12 offer. The table indicates the average teacher compensation and taxpayer impact. According to Knauss, “The percentage increase in Average Teacher Compensation is more than the percentage increase of Local Tax Impact for 2 reasons … state subsidies and attrition.”

The following table reviews the salary and benefit packages of TE teachers. Krauss provides the approximate compensation (salary and benefits) for the average T/E teacher using the current teachers contract. The numbers are supplied by the District or are multiplications of the salary and the appropriate rate (PSERS and FICA).

Knauss presents the following Salary and Benefit table, offering that the “… Total Teacher Compensation is a straightforward multiplication of the Average Teacher Compensation and the number of Employees. Total Teacher Compensation is the money taken from the taxpayers (local and statewide) for the services provided by TE teachers.”

Here is an interesting graphic from Knauss, indicating the funding sources for teacher compensation. The major source of funding – local taxes and a secondary source of funding is from state and sales tax for half of PSERS and half of FICA.

Krauss looks at the effect of any contract settlement on the T/E taxpayers, and whether it can be financed within the Act 1 limits. He looks at two different costing methods – “One method looks at the total cost of the contract to all taxpayers, local and statewide; the other method looks at the cost of the contract to the local taxpayers to reflect the local tax impact of any other offer by ‘backing out’ the statement reimbursement for PSERS and FICA.”

The Local Tax Impact is calculated by “backing out” the state contributions to FICA and PSERS. Notice that the state contributes $3.0M in subsidies to lessen the Local Tax Impact.

————————————————————————————————-

When reviewing a teacher contract offer, Knauss supports the use of the following criteria:

  • Is the offer economically sustainable under Act 1 limits?
  • Are the compensation increases of the offer in line with the current economic climate?
  • Is the compensation appropriate to attract and retain employees of quality?

Knauss answers a question that many have wondered … what happens if the teachers and the school board cannot reach a settlement? Due to substantial differences between TEEA and TE School Board, the union requested fact-finding by the PA Labor Relations Board. The independent fact finder will review both TEEA and TESD proposals and then make recommendations … however, remember the recommendations are non-binding.

The current teachers’ contract ends on Saturday, June 30. If an agreement is not reached, the teachers enter the “status quo” period, meaning that they continue to teach … to the expired contract. The teacher’s benefits and salary remain the same as in the expired contract. It is obvious that the School Board would not want an extended ‘status quo’ status for the teachers because it precludes any change to heath care benefits, compensation, etc. Knauss points out, that although the teacher compensation is frozen at its current level in ‘status quo’, legally the District must absorb any increases due to PSERS contributions or healthcare.

However, the situation is different from the teachers’ standpoint. During better economic times, the teachers would not want their contract settlement in ‘status quo’ state because working under the expired contract would mean that they would receive no additional compensation for years of service increase. But what choice do the teachers have?

According to TEEA website, the teacher’s last offer included a reduction in health care benefits and salary freeze for the first year. In their rejection of the union’s offer, the School Board instead asked the teachers to take a compensation reduction of $8,000 per teacher – which equates to as much as 13% for some teachers. There is little surprise that TEEA rejected that District’s offer, opting instead to go to the PA Labor Board. Why would the teachers want a new contract … status quo also keeps their current salary intact and preserves their current benefit package intact.

Knauss provides a multi-year analysis, assuming status quo and average compensation. He presents his analysis in several slides, giving us an idea of what certain scenarios would mean to the average taxpayer. To read Keith’s full report, click here.

Share or Like:
        
 

Paoli Transportation Center project — Taking Another Step

June 24, 2012
11 Comments

Monday morning marks the next step for the Paoli Transportation Center project!

Five months ago on January 31, I wrote that SEPTA had awarded a $7.5 million contract to Gannett Fleming for the design of a new Paoli regional rail station and parking garage. The plan calls for building the new station 80 feet west of the current train station location to better connect SEPTA and private buses. The plan will involve high-level platforms and the reworking of Amtrak interlocking system. PennDOT selected Parsons Brinckerhoff for the interlocking design work on the Keystone Line between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, which include the Paoli Transportation Center. Gannett Fleming design work is to take place through 2014.

At the same time that SEPTA announced its award to Gannett Fleming, the township selected McMahon Associates as the engineering consultant team to complete a study to outline recommendations for the necessary road improvements, including the bridge, needed to support the new transportation center. The McMahon study will address congestion, public safety and establish a plan for an overall vision for the new train station through traffic calming, streetscape and intersection modifications. This is a state-funded project and completion is expected by the end of 2013.

Tredyffrin selected Bergmann Associates as the engineering team to design the signal and roadway improvements for the intersection at Rt. 252 and 30. The design will be based on the 2011 feasibility study. This design study is state and federally funded and expected to be completed by 2013/14.

Well folks, it looks like the Paoli Transportation project is taking its next step – tomorrow, Monday, June 25 at 7:30 AM, there’s a press conference at Paoli Village Shoppes to officially announce the start of the Paoli Transportation Center project.

Share or Like:
        
 

TEEA and T/E School Board Reach Contract Negotiation Impasse

June 22, 2012
62 Comments

With only a few days remaining in June, it does not appear that a new contract will be signed in the T/E School District by the June 30 deadline. According to the Tredyffrin-Easttown Education Association (TEEA), attempts to resolve the contract differences between the school board and teachers have reached an impasse, and therefore they are requesting independent fact-finding from the PA State Labor Board.

On Monday, June 18, TEEA made a 2-year “off the record” proposal to the school board that “… included a reduction in health care benefits, an increase in health care premium share including a shift to percentage-share, a reduction in advanced studies assistance, and a full salary freeze in the first year. In return, TEEA asked for salary schedule advancement for non-master teachers in year two, a one-year-only “off-schedule” salary premium for master teachers in year two, and “no-demotions” language for the duration of the contract. This offer was rejected.”

The counter-offer from the school board asked the teachers for a salary reduction, approximately $8,000 per teachers. According to TEEA, the reduction could equal as much as 13% for some of their members. Earlier in the month, the teachers had agreed to modify their contract regarding tuition reimbursement. Their offer which was accepted and at last week’s School Board meeting, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into which modified the existing contract for one year. The MOU represented a savings of more than $400K; as a result, teacher demotions were taken off the table as a budget strategy.

It has becoming increasingly more common for PA teacher unions to take the route to request an independent arbitrator from the PA Labor Relations Board. Under Act 195, this is a process used to resolve contract negotiations when the parties have reached an impasse. The severe economic times and decreasing revenue are creating major challenges for school districts; therefore making reasonable teacher negotiations almost impossible. As I understand the process, the independent arbitrator will hear both sides, with TEEA and the School Board presenting evidence to support their position. Based on the fact-finding, the Labor Relations Board will issue a report containing their findings along with recommendations for settlement. It should be noted that the report is non-binding and the recommendations require the approval of both TEEA and the School Board.

According to a recent Daily Local article, West Chester teachers and their school board are also far apart on their new contract negotiations. Like T/E School District, Jeffrey Sultanik is serving as West Chester School District’s chief negotiator.

However, unlike TEEA, the West Chester Area Education Association is proposing a salary increase of 18.3% over the course of the 3-year contract, with a cost of living increase plus a salary step movement equating to 5.57% increase first year, 5.81% increase in year 2 and 3. The union is also requested expanded health care benefits and additional pay for meetings and a reduction of 2 work days. All I can say is WOW! I have to believe that TEEA and our School Board are not nearly as far apart as the School Board and union in West Chester.

Share or Like:
        
 

Discussion Continues on Tredyffrin’s Proposed Stormwater Overlay District Ordinance

June 21, 2012
2 Comments

A continuation of the Public Hearing on the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance followed this week’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. Click here for the June 2012 revised ordinance.

A group of 35 resident volunteers, have been working with the township staff and the potential developer of the Richter tract, Joe Duckworth, on revisions to the proposed new zoning ordinance. (For earlier discussions and specifics of Duckworth’s proposed plans for the property, enter Richter in the search tool on the home page of Community Matters.)

As part of the proposed overlay district, large storm water basins would be included on the Walker Road side of the property – access to the property would be from Old Eagle School and Swedesford Road. Although Duckworth has not submitted official plans, his proposal contains twin carriage houses and townhouses on the property for this property.

The resident volunteers, the Working Group, in conjunction with Duckworth and township staff, has significantly updated the original ordinance. Tom Colman presented comments from the Working Group, and Jeff Kosterich offered specific comments from the storm water sub-group. Based on their remarks, Colman and Kosterich suggest that although the updated draft ordinance is more satisfactory, residents feel that further modifications required before it should pass.

The Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance would be applicable to all areas in the township located in the Trout Creek Watershed. The Working Group was composed primarily of Glenhardie residents. The Richter tract is located in the Glenhardie neighborhood and because Duckworth’s development would most affect this section of the township, they are the ones with the louder voices on this issue. Although different zoning changes required, in some respects, the proposed storm water overlay district ordinance is no different from how the proposed C-1 zoning change which would allow an assisted living facility in the Daylesford section of the township. Although both the proposed Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District and the C-1 assisted living zoning change are tied to specific projects (Richter tract and Ed Morris’ assisted living project) should these zoning changes be approved, they are applicable to all the township. My point … all residents owe it to themselves to be ‘up to speed’ on these two important proposed zoning changes, regardless if you live in the Glenhardie or Daylesford areas of the township.

As the designated representative for the Working Group, Colman asked that three specific issues be considered in conjunction with the proposed Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District ordinance.

  1. Accountability Measures: The residents would like assurances that once the storm water basins are designed and implemented that there is accountability for ongoing maintenance and continued functionality. They suggest that the township adopt an official policy for accountability to prevent the risk to residents of failed storm water basins after installation. It was reported that Duckworth has agreed to an accountability policy that would be applicable to all developers in the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District. I agree that there should be a township policy (and enforcement); otherwise why bother to require storm water basins in any future land development plans.
  1. Communication/Notification Policies, Practices and Procedures on Zoning-impact Matters: The conclusion from the Working Group members was that the Township is too lax on communicating information to those residents most impacted by zoning issues. If you recall, many of the Glenhardie neighbors were not notified of the proposed Richter plan development project which caused much unnecessary angst in the community. Similarly, we have seen the same lack of communication in the proposed assisted living project and C-1 zoning change in the Daylesford neighborhood of the township. When there is a neighborhood directly impacted by a zoning change there should be specific guidelines for notification and an explanation of the process for the residents. Many township residents are not aware of the processes required for land development plans and zoning changes that may be required for projects in the township. Communicating the Township process and the relationship of the Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board, supervisors and township staff could be helpful to residents.
  1. Storm Water Action Team: The Working Group suggests that the township develop a plan to address the township’s storm water problems. As Colman explained, “Too many areas of Tredyffrin are enduring repeated damage, hardship and risk to life and property when we get even modest rainfall. It’s time to identify specific, measurable objectives, timelines, resources, and responsibilities to address this problem in a proactive way … This is not an issue like shade trees or pothole repairs; lives are at risk. We need a real plan, and we need it now.”

Traditionally there has been a real reluctance in this township to increase taxes, so it was interesting to note that the Working Group offered their own suggestion for funding storm water solutions. On a personal note, I don’t know how much longer the ‘no tax increase’ mantra can continue around here … due to increasing expenses and decreasing revenues, supervisors have been forced in recent budgets cycles to cut township staff (among other expense reductions) in an attempt to avoid a tax increase. As residents, we have watched as township services have continued to decline. I use Wilson Farm Park as an example … once the jewel of the township and an award-winning municipal park design, it is very sad to see how overgrown it now looks. Wilson Farm Park’s current condition is no doubt a direct result of the personnel and funding cuts to the Public Works department in recent Township budget cycles.

In the case of the proposed Richter development, the developer (Duckworth) indicates a willingness to pay for the cost of necessary storm water improvement. However, the storm water problem and costly solutions is more significant in the Township than could be resolved through the development of the Richter tract. The Working Group suggests that the approximate $250K yearly tax revenue from the proposed Richter tract development go towards the funding of a substantial bond issue.

Personally, I would like to see the supervisors create a resident volunteer group to review the idea for a township storm water utility. Operating much like an electric or water utility, the storm water utility would collect fees related to the control and treatment of storm water that could be used to fund a municipal storm water management program in the township. Based on Jeff Kosterich’s remarks that a number of engineers and storm water professionals living in the Glenhardie community volunteered their expertise on the storm water sub-committee, why not continue to tap into these valuable volunteer resources? Our township is rich in its wealth of accomplished, educated residents; why not utilize volunteers to help solve the storm water funding problem.

The next step for the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay ordinance process is a review of the ordinance update by the Planning Commission. My understanding is that the ordinance then moves to the Chester County Planning Commission for review and comments. Following the county review, the ordinance returns to the township supervisors, presumably in time for the July Board of Supervisors meeting for further discussion and possible vote.

Share or Like:
        
 

Report from Tredyffrin’s Business Development Advisory Committee … I was hoping for ‘New’ news!

June 19, 2012
13 Comments

Last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting and public hearing for the Trout Creek Overlay Ordinance was another marathon 4-hour meeting, ending at nearly midnight. An overflow crowd along with Channel 6 ABC news crew attended the early part of the meeting, specifically for the swearing-in ceremony of the police promotions of Lt. Leon Jaskuta, Lt. Taro Landis, Sgt. Ryan Scott, Sgt. Michelle Major and Sgt. Tom Bereda. Congratulations to these members of Tredyffrin’s police department.

The meeting featured the long-awaited presentation from the Business Development Advisory Committee. The Board of Supervisors approved the formation of the committee in April 2011 and the committee of six volunteers has worked together for 6 months to create a list of suggestions and recommendations.

According to the township website, the mission of the Business Development Advisory Committee was to … “provide recommendations to the Township Supervisors to enhance the economic vitality of Tredyffrin Township through business retention and attraction in a manner consistent with the character of the Township. The end result of this ad hoc council will be the development of a series of strategies along with suggested tactics, budgets, resources, and timing required to accomplish the Township’s business development goals.”

As a small business owner in the township, I wanted the committee to thoroughly review the business climate of our community, talk to small business owners, community members, real estate developers and corporate representatives. To what degree this was this accomplished … I am unclear. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the named community liaisons to the advisory committee was Donna Shipman and she was not contacted. Beyond a meeting early in the process with Judy Huey and her brother Rob DiSerafino, owners of Paoli Village Shoppes, what other small business owners were contacted by the committee? As follow-up to her meeting with members of the Business Development Advisory Committee, Judy provided the group with a list of township contacts with phone numbers and email addresses. I don’t know how many (or if any) on the list were contacted. I know at least 3 people (including myself) who were not.

Beyond their financial and corporate backgrounds, another reason that the six volunteers were seemingly chosen for this advisory committee was that these individuals were not already involved in the township – they did not sit on commissions or boards in the township. And as I have stated, it was disappointing that no one chosen was a small business owner. My guess is that by choosing these volunteers they would bring fresh, new ideas and recommendations for improving the economic business climate of the township.

Stanford Nishikawa presented the report from the Business Development Advisory Committee. Through a power point slide presentation, the report identified the following advantages for doing business in Tredyffrin Township:

• Low and stables taxes
• Diversity of employer
• Transportation/location
• Excellent school system
• Existing township efficiencies

Disadvantages for business in Tredyffrin:

• Land constrained/redevelopment dependent
• Paoli traffic/parking/walkability
• Danger of outdated office product

Nishikawa explained there is a real and existing danger in the outdated office space inventory in the township. The majority of the corporate office space was constructed in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Now 30 years old, the buildings are no longer able to attract the larger employers. If there is not an investment in office buildings, the higher quality employers will leave. If investment dollars do not keep up the office space, these buildings will continue to disintegrate. According to Nishikawa the only lever to pull – dropping rent – will only result in a continued drop in value of the office space, which will drive down the real estate assessment and thus create a longer term problem.

As explained by Nishikawa, there were lots of ideas and they were challenged to vet them. Under the recommendation context, the following themes were mentioned:

• Probability of success versus potential benefit versus cost
• Suggestion to take a holistic approach
• Create an environment that is business and user friendly
• Suggest a proactive approach

The report recommended that the township (supervisors?) do the following:

• Name a senior leadership business liaison
• Personal touch
• Promote advantages
• Modernize zoning codes
• Create website for commercial users
• Offer online permitting
• Education/interaction programs
• Support the Paoli Transportation project
• Residential appeal

Here’s where this report failed to inspire or suggest anything that has not already been said before. Although Nishikawa states a “personal touch” is needed to encourage business development and that the township should promote the advantages of doing business in the township, how is this accomplished? The welcome wagon, cheerleader approach to attract business is subjective … more like a PR/marketing campaign than something easily accomplished by staff or elected officials.

Nishikawa returned often to the need for elected officials to support the Paoli Transportation project. He stated that the project has been sitting around for 30 years and that the township needs to do everything it can to move it forward. An extremely expensive plan, state and federal dollars are needed and the township must help. This is old news – plus, under their ‘disadvantages’ of doing business in Tredyffrin, the report names traffic, parking and walkability as negative issues in Paoli. Although the report states that there is community support for the train station project, it is also suggests there is concern for its future and the need for elected officials to help move it forward.

Following the presentation from the Business Development Advisory Committee, the question was where do we go from here? What’s the next step? A motion was made by the supervisors to put together a plan and add the discussion for the supervisors August meeting to implement the recommendations.

I wanted this advisory committee to do more … I wanted concrete steps for economic development. One suggestion listed in the report — to create ‘education/interaction programs’ – What? How? Another suggestion, develop a ‘holistic’ approach to business development … What? The report states that the township needs to take a ‘proactive’ approach… How? Where are the specifics? What are the suggested steps?

I have a friend who always tells me, that just because I ‘want something’ to be a certain way, doesn’t mean that it ‘will be’. The volunteer advisory committee probably believes that their report accomplishes what was requested and that they met the mission’s goals and objectives, but did they? I restate from the township website, “…The end result of this ad hoc council will be the development of a series of strategies along with suggested tactics, budgets, resources, and timing required to accomplish the Township’s business development goals.” I expected, and wanted more, in the way of specifics from this Business Development Advisory Committee.

—————————————————————-

I hope to provide other updates from last night’s meeting later today.

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School Board Passes 3.3% Tax Increase; Highest Percent Increase in the Area

June 15, 2012
21 Comments

The T/E School Board meeting on Thursday night was rather anticlimactic. Most of us who have been following the budget process were not surprised by the 3.3% tax increase (1.7% Act 1 Index, 1.6% referendum exceptions) for the 2012-13 school year. Based on the District’s average residential assessment of $252,601, this translates to an average increase of $155 per homeowner in their tax bill.

The Act 1 Index increase will produce projected revenue of $1.5 million and the exceptions increase projected revenue of $1,498,916. The total revenue produced by the 3.3% tax increase is $2,998,916. The 2012-13 tax will be levied at the rate of 19.2628 mills, on the assessed valuation at a rate of $19.2628 per $1,000 assessment; an increase of .6154 mills from the 2011-12 tax rate.

How does TESD tax increase of 3.3% increase for 2012-13 school year stack up against neighboring school districts? The following local school districts have approved their budgets for 2012-13 and needed to include the following tax increases:

  • Radnor School District: 3.21% tax increase
  • Great Valley School District: 3% tax increase
  • Haverford School District: 2.73% tax increase
  • Lower Merion School District: 1.99% tax increase
  • West Chester School District: 1.7% tax increase
  • Downingtown Area School District: 1.7% tax increase
  • Phoenixville School District: 1.66% tax increase
  • Unionville-Chadds Ford School District: proposed 2.65% tax increase in Chester County and a 1.74% decrease in Delaware County (the difference comes changes in the gross property valuation of the two counties) to be approved at UCFSD meeting on Monday, June 18.

Following the final budget summary, discussion and resident commentary, the school board members were presented the opportunity to weigh-in on why they were voted for or against the 2012-13 budget. The 2012-13 budget passed 7-2 with school board members Liz Mercogliano and Rich Brake providing the dissenting votes. Brake provided a lengthy 30-minute oration, which offered historical details of what brings the District to this point and his reasoning for voting against the 2012-13 budget.

Ray Clarke also attended the school board meeting and offers his thoughts on last night’s School Board meeting. Thanks Ray!

Comments from Ray Clarke …

1. Karen Cruickshank reported that the tone in the TEEA negotiations is “increasingly positive”. One small signal of this is the memorandum of understanding that removes the requirement for the district to pay for “advanced studies assistance”, in return for dropping the demotion idea for 2012/13. Amazingly, this saves $360,000 – and it’s not even all the tuition that is paid! (Payments are continuing for those on the lowest Bachelors steps).

2. The General Fund Balance debacle continues. At its root is the fact that the Board treats this as a completely discretionary slush fund, with absolutely no rules about how it is to be used. I believe that it is completely unacceptable for $30 million of taxpayer money be be treated so cavalierly. Just one example: last year the “commitment” for PSERS “stabilization” was $15.4 million, this year it’s $3.6 million. It’s not that the difference has been used to stabilize PSERS, it’s just that the number is a plug for when other things have been accounted for. Ridiculous. Why even have that item in the first place – we plan to raise taxes for it anyway.

Having said that, the changes in this year’s commitments do move us in the right direction. $10.4 million will be moved into the Capital Fund, where it will be used for the one time expenses that we’ve discussed here are the appropriate uses for the Fund Balance.

Also worthy of mention is the commitment for the liability for vested employee services. This went up by $0.8 million. The actual payment was $0.3 million; It’s interesting that the actual employment expense was therefore $0.5 million higher than was recognized in the operating statement, another problem deferred for future taxpayers.

3. Which gets me to Dr Brake. He treated us to a half hour analysis of the school district’s finances and the changes over the last decade or so, with desktop slides. I encourage all to look for the video. He voted against the tax increase, and argued for “an entirely new status quo” for the school employees. Here are some notes I took with my commentary:

– The drop in revenues from assessment appeals offsets the increase from increasing the tax rate for the exceptions. He used this to suggest we have reached taxing capacity.

– Special education is a “ticking time bomb” and the increased costs of autism “threaten public education”. Relatedly, we heard in the Policy Committee how parents of non-residents, shopping for schools, want the right to come into classrooms to observe TE”s special education programs.

– All entities (governments/households, US/Europe, etc) have a “pathological addiction to spending beyond our means”. [An OT comment: In a long run he’s right that this is unsustainable, but in the short run, national governments able to determine monetary policy can have a stabilizing role when consumers all of a sudden come to that unsustainable realization. The problem in the US is that the political actors cannot agree on the long run plan to get the house in order, and in Europe, they have a completely crazy monetary union without a fiscal union].

– For TE routinely taxing to the max is unsustainable and not the solution. I note that the agreed 3.3% tax increase this year, and the subsequent annual 3% increases in the 4 year projection model accumulate to an increased tax bill of $600 per year for the average residential assessment. And there’s still a $4 million deficit in 2016/16.

– He is now going to pay more attention to the Fund Balance. Good!

Share or Like:
        
 

What is the Price Tag for Economic Development in Tredyffrin Township?

June 13, 2012
25 Comments

What is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township? Is it economic development at any cost; or is the answer to the question … whatever it takes.

Is it OK to ‘green light’ a land development project in Tredyffrin Township even if it doesn’t meet current zoning regulations? Is it OK to change zoning usage to suit a particular developer (and his plan) simply for the sake of economic development? Is it OK to change zoning to accommodate a specific project and developer … and by so doing, change zoning for the entire township? Is it OK to have developers and their attorneys create zoning ordinance amendment changes to Tredyffrin Zoning Code … to suit their particular needs?

I’m talking about the old Duffy Catering site on Lancaster Ave. and the proposed assisted living facility. No land development plan has been ‘officially’ filed with the township, yet there are some appointed and elected officials who seemingly already have the facility built! Facts and the required process seemed to have been discarded in favor of what ‘some’ officials believe should be the desired outcome. In this case, that means change zoning to allow a developer to construct a multi-story assisted living facility on barely 1 acre of commercial property when current zoning only permits such use on 10 acres as an institutional overlay.

At first blush, a resident might think that building an assisted living facility on the old Duffy property on Route 30 is a good idea. Before knowing all the facts, I probably would have agreed that this sounds like a good use for the property. I’m not opposed to an assisted living facility in Tredyffrin Township and …, as long as an open and transparent process is followed, all questions are answered and no rules are changed or broken, such a project could have my complete support.

But unfortunately, that is not looking like the path that is being taken for this project. The Duffy property is a 2-acre site, with approximately 1-acre C-1 zoning and 1-acre R-1 zoning. (The R-1 parcel of the property was used by Duffy’s for parking). Current zoning does not permit an assisted living facility in C-1 or R-1 in Tredyffrin Township. Rather than taking the traditional path seeking either a variance or conditional use, the developer Ed Morris, through his attorney Denise Yarnoff have submitted a C-1 zoning ordinance amendment change, to allow assisted living as usage. (As I have previously stated on Community Matters, Planning Commission meeting minutes indicate that Yarnoff thought that seeking a variance would be too costly and too time-consuming for her client.)

The Tredyffrin Zoning Code addresses assisted living facilities in Institutional Overlay (IO) Zoning and includes 4 pages of restrictions and regulations, including residential density, bed density, acre requirements, buffers, setbacks, etc. Ms. Yarnoff reduces the pages of assisted living facility regulations in Tredyffrin Zoning Code to 1 sentence in her requested zoning ordinance amendment as follows:

“A residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities/services (and supplemental services) as defined in the applicable Pennsylvania state statues, rules and regulations along with support services, which may include, but not limited to: personal health care and health care services, medical services, skilled nursing, community facilities, and congregate dining facilities”

I need to be very clear … this requested zoning ordinance amendment change is for all C-1 zoned property in Tredyffrin Township. The developer and some of our local officials would like to have it both ways. On one side, they refuse to admit that this requested zoning amendment change permitting assisted living facilities as a usage in C-1 zoning is ‘spot zoning’. But on the other hand, they would have us believe that there would be no plans for assisted living facilities in any other C-1 locations. Sorry, but I don’t think they can have it both ways.

For the record, ‘spot zoning’ as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

: the illegal singling out of a small parcel of land within the limits of an area zoned for particular uses and permitting other uses for that parcel for the special benefit of its owners and to the detriment of the other owners in the area and not as a part of a scheme to benefit the entire area.

I would love for someone to explain to me how changing zoning to suit a specific developer and his plan is not ‘spot zoning’ … looks to me like the Duffy assisted living project fits Webster’s definition!

The draft plan for this assisted living facility indicates a bed density of 93 beds on 1 acre. It is my understanding that this level of proposed 1-acre residential density for the Duffy property does not exist anywhere else in all of Chester County! It is also interesting to note, that changing C-1 to permit an assisted living facility usage also has not occurred in Chester County. Commercial zoning is for the regulations of goods and services not people; which is why assisted living facilities would typically be found in residential zoning code not in commercial zoning code.

Here’s something else — when Duffy’s was an operational catering business, the R-1 parking (non-conforming use of land for parking) was utilized. The developer’s plan for an assisted living facility on this site assumes the continued use of R-1 parking; a belief that this non-conforming parking use would be grandfathered in and therefore available for use in the proposed assisted living facility. A review of the Tredyffrin Zoning Code would indicate otherwise – see below:

ARTICLE XXIV

General Provisions

§208-99. Nonconforming buildings or uses.

Zoning, Chapter 208, page 108

D. Restoration. Building reconstruction to restore a building containing a nonconforming use shall commence within one year of the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption.

[Amended 9-10-2007 by Ord. No. HR-360]

E. Discontinuance. If a nonconforming use of land or of a building ceases or is discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more, subsequent use of such building or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

The Duffy property has sat vacant (and for sale) for at least 4 years, which means (according to Tredyffrin Zoning Code above) that the developer for this proposed assisted living facility cannot use the R-1 parcel for parking in his plan. Clearly exceeding the discontinued use of 1 year per the Tredyffrin Zoning Code, no grandfathering on the R-1 parking is permitted. We can add this to the list that makes this proposed assisted living facility at this particular location problematic. Or, is it possible that our elected officials may just ignore the township’s Zoning Code to accommodate the project?

We should not forget that two months ago, our supervisors voted to spend $100,000 for consultants to review the township’s existing commercial zoning and make recommendations. If the township is spending $100K for professional zoning advice, it would seem that there should be a moratorium on any zoning changes until the zoning expert has an opportunity review and weigh in. My guess is that setting precedent by changing C-1 zoning to include assisted living facilities without any regulations or restrictions would not be something that most zoning experts would think is a good idea. If an assisted living facility as a usage in C-1 zoning is so important, why wasn’t it included in the update of the township’s comprehensive plan completed just 3 years ago, in 2009?

Why is there such a sense of fait accompli among some of the appointed and elected officials in this township in regards to this project? The proposed assisted living project may have started out as a ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) zoning battle between a Daylesford homeowner and a developer but now has many of us in the community asking questions. Perhaps originally only concerned for her backyard, Trisha Larkin, the Daylesford Neighborhood Association president is now taking a stand for her neighborhood and for the township.

Voicing strong opposition for the requested C-1 zoning change and the proposed assisted living facility, Trish states, “The DNA favors economic development where solid process is followed, and when it serves for the greater good of its residents. This proposal favors the developer and NOT our community or Tredyffrin Twp.!”

An online ipetition has been created to “Oppose Ordinance Amendment adding Assisted Living Facility use in Commercial (C-1) Zoning in Tredyffrin Township”. Changing C-1 zoning to include assisted living is not just a Daylesford neighborhood issue; it is a township wide change. If you would like to add your name to the petition, click here.

For some of the appointed and elected officials in this township, the requested C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living facilities may be a fait accompli, but for some residents, that decision may be far from over.

Again, I ask … what is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township?

 

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme