Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Outsourcing analysis by TE School District does not stand up to public scrutiny – decision ‘on hold’

May 14, 2013
109 Comments

Taxpayers, teachers, PTO presidents, paraprofessionals, parents, substitute teachers, TENIG members and students brought their collective voices to the School Board meeting last night, and were heard, at least temporarily.

Standing three people deep and overflowing into the lobby, all attended the meeting for the singular purpose to oppose outsourcing of paraprofessionals in the TE School District. For over three hours, one voice after another was echoing the same message to the School Board, “don’t outsource.” For the record, not one person spoke in favor of the District’s proposed outsourcing plan.

With Fox News and ABC Action News filming most of the proceedings,Board members, District business manager Art McDonnell, personnel manager Sue Tiede and Superintendent Dan Waters repeatedly claimed that many of us had misunderstood and that the third-party outsourcing to STS would actually help ‘save’ the jobs of District aides and paras. They wanted us to believe that STS would hire all the displaced TE employees and that our employees would be making more money working for STS.

According to McDonnell, the need for outsourcing is based on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the cost to provide healthcare for the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers working 30 hours or more per week in TESD. These employees have never received healthcare coverage through the District. McDonnell claimed the annual cost to provide healthcare coverage to these currently uninsured District employees would be in excess of $2.3M and further citing a potential fine of $1.2M annually for noncompliance.

By the time the last person had spoken out about outsourcing, it was abundantly clear that the District and the School Board had many more questions than answers. McDonnell had predicated his evaluation of the healthcare coverage costs to the District on all 175 employees needing insurance. As was repeatedly pointed out, most of these employees have insurance through their spouses and do not need the coverage. The District’s cost to insure was based on all 175 employees working 30+ hours per week which had many in the audience asking why not reduce their hours (so the District would not be affected by the requirements of ACA).

Several residents spoke of personal experience with the Affordable Care Act and its requirements. One in particular, a CFO for a local corporation, offered that the District’s analysis was incomplete and inaccurate, and suggested the Board seek healthcare benefit expertise so as to make an informed decision. Example of inadequate District analysis — The Affordable Care Act does not stipulate that the healthcare coverage must be the same as offered to the teachers and administrators. Rather than plugging in the cost for a ‘basic’ healthcare coverage in their outsourcing analysis, the McDonnell used the cost of the Cadillac-type of healthcare coverage of the administrators.

The most striking comments of the evening were from those who had called the proposed outsourcing company, STS to learn about the company and their employment requirements. They were told that STS employees only need graduate from high school, or a GED will suffice. (Remember all the aides, paras and substitute teachers working in TE have 4-year degrees and many have Master degrees). When asked if any additional training was needed to serve as a school district paraprofessional, the response from the company HR — was one evening of their STS Academy training (!). One young woman in the audience spoke last night who works for TESD but is also a STS employee. She explained STS hiring procedure and the shocking revelation that STS hired her with no interview required.

Personnel director Sue Tiede repeatedly countered the low employment standard of STS that should District use this company, they would be required to meet the TESD requirements. We also learned that STS has no experience with this type of job outsourcing. Although McDonnell and Tiede offered that a couple of Lancaster County school districts employ STS, we learned quickly from audience members that these contracts were only recently signed … therefore leading to the speculation that our award-winning school district would serve as the company’s outsourcing guinea pig.

Facing many unanswered questions from audience members and an outsourcing analysis that did not stand up to public scrutiny, at 11:20 PM, the School Board voted unanimously to table the discussion of outsourcing for the night. By the Finance Committee meeting on June 10, the administration and the Board will seek a better understanding of the Affordable Care Act (and its requirements) plus work to answer the many questions and possible solutions offered by the public last night.

Are Dan Waters and the TE School Board planning to outsource without public discussion?

May 13, 2013
9 Comments

In advance of tonight’s School Board meeting, all aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals working in the TE School District received the following Q&A Fact Sheet this afternoon from Dan Waters.

Is the message to the District employees and the taxpayers supposed to be — don’t bother to show up tonight with your questions because the District and the School Board has already made up its mind on outsourcing? Where’s the public discussion? Don’t the opinions of the residents in this District count for anything? We elected these nine School Board members to represent ‘US’ — where’s our representation!

According to the email from Waters, the Board has received 31 emails from people that misunderstand the outsourcing plan. Why do you suppose that people misunderstood? The only time I know that the outsourcing ‘plan’ was ever discussed was at the Finance Committee meeting and I can tell you that the School Board did NOT know all the answers. We were told that outsourcing did not have to do with the Affordable Care Act, yet in this Q&A, it states that as a reason. It was clear at the Finance Committee meeting that the District CANNOT and WILL NOT mandate that STS hire the TE paraprofessionals. It was specifically stated that all the District could do was ENCOURAGE the hiring of the the TE employees. Read the PR statement from the District and they would have us believe that it’s an absolute that the employees keep their jobs.

Is the intention of this email from Dan Waters to intimidate aides and paraprofessionals from speaking out tonight?

Is the intention of the email to silence TENIG members because they are next up for outsourcing?

Is the public supposed to be intimidated by Dan Waters, Art McDonnell and the 9 School Board members? Are we not entitled to ask questions and receive answers?

Any misunderstanding of the outsourcing plan is completely ‘by design’ by the District … keep us in the dark, with limited information. Give us ‘fuzzy math’ and tell us that the District is saving money. Promise aides their jobs when they get outsourced but privately know there’s no guarantee. Tell the paraprofessionals that they will make more money because they get to keep their 7.5% pension contribution. If people in this community want a ‘voice’, they are going to have to show up tonight and claim it!

This draft Question and Answer Fact Sheet was prepared to be sent to affected employees if the outsourcing of the work of aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals was approved at this evening’s School Board meeting. As of this time, the Board has received 31 emails with a common misunderstanding of the plan. The following Fact Sheet regarding the transition to STS as the employer describes the District’s plan for outsourcing this work while accomplishing the Board’s goal to maintain our current aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in their current positions.

Dan Waters
Superintendent of Schools
Tredyffrin/Easttown School District

Questions and Answers regarding Transition to Substitute Teacher Service, Inc.

The District appreciates the work of the support service personnel in assisting our children to succeed. This shift to Substitute Teachers Service, Inc. (STS) does not diminish your contribution to the students which is appreciated by all. The budget strategy was delayed for the past three years, but the state-required increase in the District’s contribution to the PSERs fund and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act require this shift of the work to an outsourcing management company. We encourage you to attend the STS transition meeting to begin the process of employment with STS at TESD.

1. What was the District’s motivation in making this change?

The District’s motivation is to retain current employees in the same building with the same hours while increasing the typical aide, para-educator or paraprofessional’s total compensation.

2. Why is the District doing this now?

The Affordable Care Act is now law. The aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals were not eligible for healthcare benefits in the past. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act the District would have to reduce aide, para-educator and paraprofessional hours below the 30 hour threshold which requires that healthcare benefits be provide to employees who work for school districts.

3. What is the District’s goal for outsourcing the work of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals?

Outsourcing the work of aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals has been considered as a budget strategy for the past three budget years by the Board. The goal of the strategy is to maintain the current personnel with comparable hours within a long-term financially sustainable budget. The mandatory PSERS increase as a percent of salaries for individuals employed by the District, along with the implications of the Affordable Care Act, coupled with declining revenues made it necessary at this time to implement outsourcing the work of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals.

4. Will the current employees in these roles be offered the opportunity to keep their current positions next year while working for STS?

Yes. The goal of the strategy remains that current employees whose performance is deemed satisfactory will be encouraged to accept the opportunity to be hired by STS.

5. When will STS become my employer?

The contract with STS begins on July 1, 2013. Your work year would follow the typical schedule and would begin with the start of school in the fall of 2013.

6. The Board approved contract with STS begins July 1, 2013. Will I be separated from employment by the District before being hired by STS?

Yes. In June, all aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals will have their employment with the District ended. The separation will appear for Board action in the June 17th Board agenda. The employee will be given the opportunity within the next few weeks to meet with STS and begin the STS employment process. Again, the goal of the District strategy is to transfer the management responsibility to STS, while maintaining employees in their current roles at TESD.

7. When would I begin working as an employee of STS?

It is the District’s desire that our current support staff members will return to their assignments in the District in the fall as employees of STS.

8. What do I need to do to be hired by STS?

You will be invited to attend a transition meeting with the District and STS. This meeting will be held at a District school to be announced. At this meeting, you will be able to begin paperwork to become an STS employee at TESD in the fall of 2013.

9. Will I need to provide new clearances and a TB test to be considered for employment by STS?

Yes. These are state mandated forms and the STS employee is responsible for the cost.

10. Since I will be separated from the District and will not receive a reasonable assurance letter to return to work in the fall of 2013 as a District employee, am I eligible to apply for unemployment compensation during the days I am not employed in the summer?

Possibly yes. Depending upon the extent and nature of any work you perform over the summer, you may be able to choose to apply for unemployment compensation for the days you are not employed by the District in the summer. If you are uncertain about your unemployment compensation entitlement, you may file for unemployment benefits with the Unemployment Compensation Bureau. The District will not file for these benefits on your behalf.

11. Will my current paid holidays be changed in the first year when I am employed by STS?

You will continue to have 10 paid holidays per year and 2 paid floating holidays in the 2013-2014 school year when you are assigned to the T/E School District as an employee of STS. The floating holidays earned during 2012-2013 but not used will be paid out in June 2013 as is our practice.

12. What will my paid sick time allotment be in the first year when I am employed by STS?

STS will provide you with 10 paid sick days during the 2013-2014 school year.

13. Would my assignment next year be at the same school with the same total hours per week if I am employed by STS?

Generally speaking, yes. Typically, we have some employees who work in new locations each year; however, most support personnel return to the same building for the same total hours as they worked in the previous year.

14. What will my total compensation be as an employee of STS?

The total compensation as an STS employee includes a reduced hourly rate of approximately 12%; this new rate will not require a 7.5% employee contribution to PSERS; the employee will have the ability to choose to file for unemployment compensation benefits. This new annual total compensation may be the same or greater than it had been as a TESD employee, because the PSERS contribution is not required and you may choose to file for unemployment compensation.

15. What about the PSERs retirement funds that I have accrued?

The District will arrange to have a representative from PSERs present a seminar on this topic to separated employees. This PSERs seminar will be held in the District, as soon as possible. The goal of this PSERs seminar is to provide employees with information which will assist them in making an informed decision about their PSERs account once they are no longer employed by the District.

16. As an STS employee will I be required to use KRONOS?

Yes.

17. Will my hours be reduced as an STS employee?

Generally speaking, no. Most STS employees will work the same total hours as in the previous year. A few STS employees may see adjustments in their hours due to needs at the various buildings. These personnel hour adjustments happen annually for certain employees.

18. Does STS provide access to employees for a self-funded retirement savings fund?

Yes, STS will provide the employee with access to a 401(k) type of retirement savings program. This 401 (k) type retirement savings program is funded by the employee, not by STS.

19. Will STS provide any medical benefits to the employees?

No. The current TESD aide, para-educator and paraprofessional are not eligible for health care coverage. The same will apply to STS employees.

Will outsourcing in TE School District signal decline of property values?

May 12, 2013
20 Comments

At the Monday TE School Board meeting, our community’s taxpayers, parents and School District employees deserve an open and honest discussion on the impact of outsourcing. If the jobs of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers are outsourced with a third party contractor, we deserve to know the long-term costs and financial benefits, if any. Based on the numbers provided at the Financial Committee meeting, I am not convinced that outsourcing is a cost-savings measure.

Outsourcing subjects our most vulnerable students, those with special needs, to a revolving door of low-paid, less qualified replacements hired by the low bidder outside contractor. Is this better for children with special needs than keeping the dedicated longtime TE employees who parents and students trust and respect?

And what about the taxpayers in the community who don’t have children in the school district … the issue of outsourcing affects you too. To date, Tredyffrin and Easttown Township residents have enjoyed stable real estate values; the reputation of the T/E School District a key to the sustainability. The quality of a school district affects local property values and as a result, homeowners are willing to pay a premium. With the outsourcing of paraprofessionals in T/E, I think we will see the beginning of a downturn in our home values. Everyone needs to understand that if the School Board votes on Monday to outsource the aides and paraeducators, the jobs of the District’s custodians, kitchen workers and support staff will not be far behind. The homeowners in this School District should have assurances that living in the T/E community will continue to mean sustainability of the home real estate values.

Upon his election as T/E School Board president in December 2012, Kevin Buraks stated, “We’re benefiting families with kids who are in school because they’re getting a top-level education that they’ll have for the rest of their lives. I think we’re also benefiting families who don’t have kids in school, because we’re keeping high property values because the schools are ranked in the top of the state”. Contrary to what you stated 5 months ago, I would argue Mr. Buraks that outsourcing of aides is not beneficial to our families and outsourcing will certainly not keep our property values high. Perhaps, President Buraks should review his own words prior to the outsourcing vote.

Scott Dorsey sent in a comment for the last Community Matters post but rather than have it buried in the stream of comments, I am adding it to this post. Mr. Dorsey is a School Board candidate and voices strong opposition to outsourcing. Opposing Dorsey in Tredyffrin Region II is currently serving School Board Director Rich Brake. In Tredyffrin Region I, incumbent Kevin Buraks is challenged by Peter Connors. The four Easttown Region III candidates are Doug Carlson, Virgnia Latner, Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim.

Primary Election Day is May 21 and knowing where candidates stand on issues has never been more important than in 2013. I invite current School Board Directors Buraks and Brake and candidates Connors, Carlson, Latner, Piccioni and Kim to submit a personal statement on the issue of outsourcing. Similarly to Scott Dorsey’s statement, all statements received prior to Monday night’s meeting will appear on Community Matters. (Although Betsy Fadem and Anne Crowley are not seeking re-election, they are welcome to submit outsourcing statements as well Pete Motel, Jim Bruce, Liz Mercogliano and Kris Graham.)

From Scott C. Dorsey …

As a resident of Tredyffrin, I stand firmly against any proposal that would outsource the jobs of my fellow neighbors. I truly believe there is an assault on those who have no union representation and it is time for our community to let its voice be heard.

I am saddened by the latest actions of our School Board. The Board has lost its way in giving our top administrators a sweet pay increase and retirement bonus while pushing paraprofessionals out to the lowest outsourcer bid. I understand the Board struggles to find financial opportunities to keep the school district solvent, but do we stoop to tactics of harassing nonprofit organizations by questioning their tax status or attempting to tear down neighborhood popular tennis courts? Do we discard loyal and valued employees who contribute to our students’ success?

Why are they making these decisions without the full input of the community? Where is the transparency?

Government can’t solve all the problems on its own, but Tredyffrin has been a community where people of all backgrounds can raise their families and provide their children a great education. In recent years, our educational system has come under attack. It is time to have public meetings and hear the voices of our neighbors before making decisions that will radically change the character of our schools.

Outsourcing will not save the district money or be a better deal for aides and paraprofessionals, as some School Board members have suggested. I beg my friends on the Board to listen to the people. It is time to focus on investing, not slashing the greatness of our community. I ask all my neighbors to come to the School Board meeting on Monday night to oppose the outsourcing of our educational system. Let us fight to protect those who are oppressed. May God bless us to find the right solutions that will preserve a great school district by investing in its children and valued employees.

175 Aides and Paraeducators are on the verge of outsourcing in T/E School District — Help save their jobs!

May 9, 2013
57 Comments

It is almost impossible to believe that we live in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb with award winning, nationally ranked schools and our School Board is voting whether to outsource 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers at Monday’s School Board meeting.

Since attending the Finance Committee meeting and writing about it this week, I have heard from parents, residents, aides, TENIG members and teachers. Not a single person contacted me to say that they support outsourcing, touted as a cost-savings measure by the District. I understand that there is pressure to cut costs in the District budget but cutting costs should not be at the expense of our most vulnerable students.

Although the District business manager Art McDonnell presented a couple of slides at the Finance Committee meeting about outsourcing, many in the audience left short on answers and confused. Here’s a review of what I think we know at this point about the outsourcing. According to McDonnell, the staff researched outsourcing opportunities and met with five different vendors. We were not given the names of the other vendors, only the recommended vendor – Substitute Teachers Service, Inc. (STS). During the evening, it was repeatedly stated that STS is one of the nation’s largest outsourcing vendors and has been in the business for 25 years.

The “Analysis of Outsourcing of Aides and Paraeducators” slide indicated that the 2013-14 anticipated wage and benefits costs for aides and paraeducators is $3,359,784. The cost to the District to outsource with STS is 22.5% of actual wages paid to the aides and paraeducators. STS will pay all benefits form the 22.5%. It was unclear what those ‘benefits’ were beyond the required Social Security, etc. The agreement with STS will be for 3 years. The increased costs to the District for outsourcing in Year One is $126,307 and Year Two is $59,678. In Year Three, the District will see a projected savings of $529,544. How does the District go from losing money ($190K) the first two years to saving $500K? I have no idea.

The anticipated wages and benefit costs for substitutes for 2013-14 is $842,250. Like the aides and paraeducators, if outsourced to STS, the cost to the District is 22.5% of actual wages and vendor pays all ‘benefits’ out of the 22.5% and is a three-year agreement. The increased cost to the District is Year One of $76,500, Year Two of $60,112 and Year Three of $44,275. It is my understanding that the District will not see a savings until Year Six if the substitute teachers are outsourced! By outsourcing, the District loses money for 5 years before recognizing savings … and this is viewed as a solution?

To be very clear, should outsourcing occur, there is no guarantee that the aides and paraeducators will still have jobs in our school district. How do I know this absolutely … I asked that specific question at the Finance Meeting and was told by Sue Tiede that the District would ‘encourage’ STS to keep our employees. I asked if the District’s agreement with STS could mandate that the outsourcing company hire our employees and the answer was NO. I don’t view encouraging a vendor to hire our employees as any guarantee to the 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers.

When I asked the Board if STS would compensate the TE employees at their current pay level, the answer from Art McDonnell was no, he indicated that their pay would be lower if outsourcing occurs. However, by the end of the outsourcing discussion, that response shifted with Dan Waters stating that the outsourced employees would actually be paid more if they were outsourced. The rationale behind this claim – when outsourced, the paraprofessionals will not be making the 7.5% PSERS contribution so therefore the employee makes more money. What? This is not more money as the contribution was the employee’s money in the first place.

I’m asking the question again, ‘Where’s the fairness”? Three months ago, the School Board approved raises for the highest paid employees — the administrators. Now the Board is contemplating outsourcing the employees with the least amount of power, making the least amount of money. If you recall, the administrator raises were buried in a consent agenda; and we came very close to see a repeat performance with the outsourcing. The game plan at the Finance Committee meeting was to add outsourcing on the School Board meeting consent agenda. However, thanks to Board member Anne Crowley speaking out, outsourcing will be a priority discussion, which allows for public comment prior to the Board vote. How does the District balance raises to administrators against the outsourcing of aides … interesting interpretation of ‘shared sacrifice.’

In closing, I am including excerpts from some of the emails in the last few days in regards to the District’s proposed outsourcing:

From a District aide …

“These individuals have direct contact with our children on a daily basis. They are our greeters in the lobby, the aides who work one on one with special kids in the classrooms, they monitor lunch periods and recess, they work in the library and in the office , they assist teachers in the classroom, accompany our children on field trips and the do so much more. Many live in our community, have children in the school system. They are our neighbors and friends.

Personally, I worry that non-local strangers will be brought into our schools and not give the same quality of care and attention to our kids that my colleagues or I would. Our current aides have a college degrees and many master’s, they go through rigorous security screening by the district and by the school staff. Many have been working here for several years. “

From a resident …

“I challenge the School Board to spend some time really thinking about the outsourcing decision before you vote. Spend some time; really know what these people do, because those paraprofessionals have among the hardest jobs in the building. I’ve done that job; I respect the heck out of those people.”

From a TE teacher …

“This outsourcing will affect all students in various ways none of which are good. Paraprofessionals are partners to the teachers in the education process. They pick up where the teachers leave off. They are there to lend a hand when one or a few students need it, so teachers can continue teaching the other students in the classroom. I think the important message here is the fact that the role of paraprofessional in TESD is a very important one and I urge the Board to weigh the financial savings against the impact on our students. I’d like the Board to think about the students first. I think we’ve lost our way a little bit with regards to our students.”

From a parent of a special needs child …

“I completely support the paras of TE. They do this job because they love it and they love being with the children. The paras make very little money and many have teaching degrees. To me, as a parent, it makes me feel very comfortable sending my child who has special needs to school each day. I know what it would do to my child having a different face in class each day who doesn’t know what to do or how to help. Cutting costs should not come at the expense of our students. Both special needs and typically developing children benefit from having para professionals in our schools that are there every day.”

If you care about the future of 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District plan on attending the upcoming School Board Meeting. Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a paraprofessional, a TENIG member or a resident and oppose outsourcing, join me on Monday, May 13 at 7:30 PM at the T/E School District Administration Offices (TEAO), West Valley Business Center, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne.

Improving Home Energy Efficiency — Free workshop Monday, May 13

May 9, 2013
Comments

FREE WORKSHOP FOR HOMEOWNERS, “ENERGY EFFICIENCY 101”

WILL BE PRESENTED ON MAY 13 AT UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP BUILDING

PHILADELPHIA (MAY 8, 2013): Homeowners can learn how to improve their home’s energy efficiency – and save money on utility bills – during the free “Energy Efficiency 101”workshop taking place on Monday, May 13 at Freedom Hall, Upper Merion Township Building. The 90-minute workshop will start at 7 p.m.

The workshop is being presented by the Upper Merion Township Environmental Advisory Council, and will feature expert advice for homeowners on how to make their homes more comfortable; how to improve energy efficiency and save money on utility bills; and how to take advantage of the low-cost loans for home energy efficiency improvements available through the regional EnergyWorks program. All workshop attendees can enter to win a free home energy assessment valued at $400 and a free programmable thermostat, among other items.

Advance registration for the free “Energy Efficiency 101” workshop on May 13 is required via email tojserfass@umtownship.org or by calling 610-205-8506. Freedom Hall, Upper Merion Township Building is located at 175 West Valley Forge Road in King of Prussia, PA 19406.

Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Program, EnergyWorks was launched in 2010 to assist residential and commercial building owners in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties with planning, financing, implementing and assessing energy savings projects. The program brings together all available rebates, tax credits, low interest loans and qualified contractors to make these improvements simple, affordable and reliable.

All EnergyWorks projects are designed to produce increased energy efficiency of at least 25 percent, with many designed to reduce energy use by as much as 40 percent. Along with increasing home comfort and lowering homeowners’ energy usage and bills, a whole-house or targeted EnergyWorks home improvement project – such as air sealing and insulation, upgrading heating and cooling systems, and other measures – can also improve a home’s Home Energy Score (HES), helping to increase its resale value.

More information about EnergyWorks can be found at www.EnergyWorksNow.com.

Zoning Amendment Could be Solution to Saving the Tennis Courts

May 1, 2013
13 Comments

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda. According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

  1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
  2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
  3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
  4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
  5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member. I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion. The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application? If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application. Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded. Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

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

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment. Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

US News & World Report ranks Conestoga HS #5 in Pennsylvania and #313 in US

April 26, 2013
31 Comments

US News & World Report ranks Conestoga HS #5 in Pennsylvania and #313 in the US. The annual rankings of the country’s best high schools are out this week from US News & World Report. The rankings offer a snapshot of a school’s performance based on test data from 21,000 public high schools which represented 49 states (Nebraska did not present enough data to be considered) and the District of Columbia. Conestoga High School received gold level standing, listing a distinctive ranking of 313 of all public schools in the country. In Pennsylvania, US News listed Conestoga as #5.

The news outlet’s formula for determining their list of best high schools is a combination of school performance on state proficiency tests and how well they prepare students for college. A review of the individual states, had California leading the nation in 2013 rankings of best high schools with nearly 28 percent of its eligible high school receiving gold or silver levels. Maryland came in second with 25 percent receiving top designations and Connecticut third at 18.9 percent. To be eligible for a state ranking, a school must be awarded a national gold or silver medal. Pennsylvania has 570 school districts and 687 public high schools. In Pennsylvania, 168 high schools qualified for ‘best high school’ ranking by US News & World Report with either gold, silver or bronze medals. Nationally 500 schools earned gold medals, 1,790 were awarded silver and 2,515 took home bronze medals. Magnet and charter schools, which accept a limited number of students through a lottery or application process, accounted for 145 of the top 500 schools.

Here are the top 10 public high schools for 2013 as listed by US News & World Report:

#1 Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia
#2 Lehigh Valley Academy Charter School, Bethlehem
#3 Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, Erie
#4 Wyomissing Area Jr-Sr High School, Wyomissing
#5 Conestoga High School, Berwyn
#6 Central High School, Philadelphia
#7 Upper St. Clair High School, Pittsburgh
#8 Radnor High School
#9 Lower Moreland High School, Huntingdon Valley
#10 Unionville High School, Kennett Square

Last year on Community Matters, I provided the top 10 high schools in Pennsylvania for 2012, listed below:

:#1 Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia
#2 Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, Erie
#3 Conestoga High School, Berwyn
#4 Unionville High School, Kennett Square
#5 Wyomissing Area Jr-Sr High School, Wyomissing
#6 Radnor High School, Radnor
#7 New Hope-Solebury High School, New Hope
#8 Mt. Lebanon High School, Pittsburgh
#9 Upper St. Clair High School, Pittsburgh
#10 Central High School, Philadelphia

In reviewing the Pennsylvania ‘best high schools’, it is interesting to note that Conestoga High School as well as Radnor and Unionville high school dropped slightly in the US News rankings (Conestoga from #3 to #5, Radnor from #6 to #8 and Unionville from #4 to #10) yet Masterman, a magnet school in Philadelphia retained first place. Charter school Lehigh Valley Academy in Bethlehem did not make the 2012 top 10 best high schools but is #2 in the state on the 2013 list. US News & World Report ranked Great Valley High School as #12 in 2012 but for 2013 the school has dropped to #21. Although Phoenixville High School was ranked as #25 in 2012, the school did not qualify for the 2013 rankings.

VFES Tennis Courts: Looking for an explanation from TESD President Kevin Buraks

April 22, 2013
5 Comments

The Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts are on tonight’s agenda of the TESD. Every time you think that this situation has moved forward, it takes a couple of steps backwards. As a result, it is unclear exactly what is going to come out of tonight’s meeting — will the courts stay or will they go?

At the District Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 12, the committee voted to recommend to the school board that the tennis courts be saved. Having attended the Facilities Meeting, I took that to mean that their recommendation would be discussed at the next regular School Board meeting (tonight). I presumed that the Facilities Committee would first make the recommendation; but then it would be up to the full School Board to ‘act’ on that recommendation.

However, at the same time that the Facilities Meeting was going on, a draft tennis court agreement was sent from the District to the Township. We learned of that proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, April 15 from chair Michelle Kichline. Kichline, with concurrence from Township Solicitor Vince Donohue, suggested legal problems with the proposal … specifically, that the District was asking for stormwater relief from the Township, in exchange for the tennis courts. After all the discussion that has taken place on this topic, it is impossible to understand why the School Board cannot accept that a stormwater-tennis court trade is not legally possible. Why would the School District submit such a proporal to the township that included storm water relief? We were led to believe at the Facilities Committee meeting, that the school district was interested in a reasonable settlement of the tennis courts situation. However, the proposed agreement suggests otherwise. Who wrote this draft agreement … the School District Solicitor Ken Roos?

Beyond the legalities of the proposal, I am struggling to understand how this agreement was sent to the township before the School Board reviewed it. How could the School Board review the draft agreement before the Facilities Committee even sent them their recommendation? Did School Board president Kevin Buraks review the tennis court proposal and authorize its release to the Township? Doesn’t proper procedure count for anything? Where’s the sunshine?

The outcome from the Board of Supervisors meeting was the suggestion for the School District and Township solicitors to prepare the tennis court agreement. Donohue and Roos are left to ‘hash’ out the agreement between the two entities at the taxpayer’s expense. Neither TESD nor Tredyffrin Township can afford the legal expense that has now been created by this situation. With all the talks of cuts in the school district, threats of outsourcing, etc. where’s the fiscal responsibility?

But here we are with the tennis courts on tonight’s School Board agenda. The saga continues …

Capital Health ‘flips’ Jimmy Duffy’s property — Sage Senior Living Development is ‘new owner’

April 19, 2013
4 Comments

This is provided as a follow-up to last night’s presentation at the Planning Commission meeting on the planned assisted living project at the Jimmy Duffy’s site.

The sketch plan for the new assisted living facility presented by Kelly Cook Andress, President of Sage Senior Living Development, had some notable changes from the original Capital Health plan of 2012. Gerald Farrell of Capital Health, developer Ed Morris and their attorney Denise Yarnoff attended numerous Planning Commission meetings and community meetings with neighbors and concerned citizens during 2012. These meetings were the precursor to the township changing CI zoning to permit assisted living as a usage.

Up until the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was released, we assumed that Capital Health was the owner. There was no reference last night as to when Sage Senior Living came into the picture or why Capital Health was no longer involved. However, Denise Yarnoff and Ed Morris do remain as the attorney and developer, respectfully, working now with Andress on the Sage project.

Although the information was not provided at the meeting, according to Caroline O’Halloran’s Main Line Media News article, Eagle National Bank sold the property to Capital Health on March 29, 2013 for $2.25 million and then immediately ‘flipped’ the property to Sage Senior Living sometime in the last 3 weeks.

When originally presented to residents by Ed Morris in early 2011, the proposed project was described as a ‘retirement’ facility for seniors … a place for local residents to downsize from their large homes but remain in Tredyffrin Township. I recall Morris initially suggested that many of the residents would have their own cars and be driving in the community. As the project moved forward, Morris backed off the idea that most of the residents at the facility would be driving — he probably realized that by promoting that residents would be driving also meant they would have cars; and cars would mean greater parking requirements on the site.

Last night, Andress painted a very different picture of the project, stating that the average age of people moving in to the proposed assisted living facility would be 86 years, not the ‘empty nesters’ of the earlier plan. She spoke of her Towson, MD facility, similar in size to the 78-80 units planned for the Duffy site. At her Towson facility, only 2 of the residents still have drivers licenses and only one of them has a car. Andress used the rationale of so few drivers as the reason that Sage Senior Living would not need the required parking. She spoke of the stricter

How many parking spaces does Andress need for her Sage Senior Living project? Here’s the applicable township zoning regulation:

§208-103 Off-Street Parking

(23) Residential care facilities for older persons and skilled nursing facilities: one parking space per two permanent beds approved unless otherwise a greater number is determined by the Zoning Officer after taking into consideration the number of units, occupancy per unit and number of employees.

Looking at Andress’ plan for 78-80 units (and assuming only one bed per unit) at a minimum, this assisted living facility requires 39-40 parking spaces. The C1 zoning for assisted living permits a facility to have 100 beds, which would require a minimum of 50 parking spaces. Although the adjacent VetCare has parking, those parking spaces cannot be included in the development project. The sketch plan indicated 37 parking spaces, which falls short of the township required parking.

The earlier assisted living facility plan required the use of the R1 zoning parcel to meet the parking requirement. Andress’ plan show

Several times during the Sage Senior Living presentation, Andress referred to sub-committee meetings with Planning Commissioners. It was unclear from the meeting which commissioners were part of this sub-committee although Commissioner Tory Snyder referenced these prior discussions in her comments to the applicant. As an audience member, it was very confusing to follow the references to these non-public meetings.

Due to weather, Daylesford Neighborhood Association President Trisha Larkin was delayed in Chicago and unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Trish provided the following statement to Community Matters:

Unfortunately my flight was delayed yesterday and I couldn’t attend the meeting. However, I was briefed by several residents and here are our top concerns:

1. When C-1 zoning was changed last Fall to include ALF use, it was all predicated on the OLD owner’s vision and site plan. Last night, the new owner (Sage) proposed a much different vision and perhaps a more “institutional” use than what was approved for Capital Health by the BoS. The “lock-down/underground” dementia/Alzheimer’s Unit that Sage has in mind leaves us questioning if the PA Code allows for such use in C-1? It seems that more discovery should take place to determine if such use is permitted in C-1.

2. § 208-103 Off-Street Parking Facilities. Perhaps Sage is under the impression that supplying enough parking in the C-1 space is optional vs. mandatory. Tredyffrin Township Zoning Code 208-103 states they must provide 1 parking space per 2 permanent beds. This has been the DNA’s point for over a year – the Duffy space is entirely too small for this project.

If Sage chooses to put that many beds (78 – 100) on 1 acre, then they MUST provide a minimum of 39 parking spaces. It’s irrelevant if the average resident is 86 and doesn’t drive. Zoning laws are zoning laws! Tredyffrin already did Ed Morris a solid and changed C-1 zoning for this project. Now what? The PC, BoS and Zoning Health Board should just whimsically reduce the # of parking spaces required too? Seriously? You can’t have it both ways! 39 spaces are needed to safely accommodate employees, visitors, residents, deliveries, physicians stopping in to provide care, rehab nurses, etc.

It’s my understanding that Dr. Rowan of Paoli Vet Care was adamant at the PC meeting that he doesn’t intend to “share” his allotted 15 spaces with Sage. Therefore, Sage should not include those spots in their June site plan.

So, the DNA asks (again) – HOW can Sage build the facility, the parking, picnic areas, etc. all on ONE acre of C-1 space?

Easy – they’ll ask the PC and BoS to “borrow” from the one acre of R-1! Although the current sketch plan showed the R-1 parcel as “green” space, the DNA is very concerned Sage intends to use the R-1 space as “overflow parking” down the line. The PC, BoS and ZHB cannot allow any more concessions for this project! R-1 is a precious commodity and it needs to be protected! The DNA must be assured that the green space (R-1) must never be used for anything other than green space!

Perhaps THIS is why ALF’s should have a have a 3 – 5 acre minimum requirement?? Try as you may…you JUST can’t stuff a Size 10 foot into a Size 5 shoe!!

3. “Secret” Meetings: It’s very concerning that a few PC members admitted that discussions took place at Sub-Committee meetings. News to the DNA! We’ve never been invited to any such meetings, nor did we know any such meetings occurred. Since we are the folks that are most directly impacted by this project – (yet again) WHY are we not included in the process? Frankly, it’s insulting. It seems that the builder, the ALF owner, and a few township officials are involved in Sub-Committee (secret) meetings, but the residents are left out time and again. Very sad.

The DNA plans to stay actively involved in the Site Plan process. We respectfully request that the Township make no further concessions for this project. If Sage is compelled to build such a massive project, perhaps they can look to larger parcels that would more appropriately accommodate such an ambitious project.

Thank you,
Trisha Larkin
DNA President

————————————————————————————————————-

Addendum to this article:
As part of her presentation to the Planning Commission, Sage Senior Living Development President Andress described her other two assisted living facilities, one in Towson, MD and the other in Wallingford, PA – Plush Mills. Because Plush Mills is close, I was interested to learn more about that facility and its management. Plush Mills is a 7-story high-rise building in Delaware County and would have the same oversight by PA Department of Public Welfare as the proposed Paoli facility.

Researching Plush Mills online, I found violation reports from PA Department of Public Welfare stemming from annual state inspections. Annual inspections are required for assisted living facilities in Pennsylvania. All violations specified on the violation report must be corrected by a specified date and continued compliance must be maintained.

Some of the Plush Mills violations are as mundane as missing trash can lids to more serious issues including employees not receiving required Federal criminal background checks within required 80 days of hiring and discontinued patient medicine not properly destroyed.

Below are the links to complete PA Department of Public Welfare violation reports for Plush Mills:

From Jimmy Duffy’s Catering to Sage Senior Living … Planning Commissioners to review plans tonight

April 18, 2013
1 Comment

Looks like the old Jimmy Duffy catering site may soon to have a new name … ‘Sage Senior Living Development’.

For months leading up to September 2012, there was an urgency to pass the new C1 zoning ordinance to permit assistant living facilities (ALF). The driver behind this zoning change was Capital Health and developer Ed Morris with plans to build an ALF on the former Jimmy Duffy’s Catering site on Lancaster Ave in Daylesford. During that period there was much discussion and debate with township supervisors, planning commissioners, township manager and residents regarding the C1/R1 site and its suitability as the future home of an assisted living facility.

On September 18, I wrote “Community Matters: Your Voice Matters … Except when it comes to C-1 Zoning Change” discussing the ordinance change and what I viewed as a flawed township process. Here is an excerpt from that post …

I thank all the citizens who took 4-1/2 hours of their time on Monday night to show support and to have their voices heard on the C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living usage. Tredyffrin residents spoke out from across the township, Paoli, Berwyn, Strafford, Wayne, etc. not just the Daylesford neighbors. Hours of public testimony and not a single resident voiced support for the proposed C-1 zoning change. Citizens stated opposition for a host of reasons … flawed process, spot zoning, preferential treatment to a developer, should be a conditional use not a by-right use, bed density, safety concerns for patients, increased demand on township’s emergency services, etc. — the list went on and on.

Given the urgency in pushing the C1 zoning change through the system, it has been very surprising that the developer and his plans have been MIA for the last seven months. If you recall, one of the rationales from the Planning Commission in regards to the C1 zoning change, was the fear that the township might lose Morris’ development plan if they took too long in changing the zoning. Touting economic development for the community, there was a concern among some of the planning commissioners that we might lose this opportunity if the township didn’t move swiftly to permit ALF as a permitted use in C1.

So … on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda is the following:

06-2013; Sage Senior Living Development: Sketch Plan Application for an assisting living facility in C1/R1 Districts (parcels 43-10J-127/43-10J-128.1). Action: Discussion and input by the Planning Commission to the applicant for conceptual site plan prepared by Momenee & Associates, Inc., dated 4/4/2013.

The Jimmy Duffy site is comprised two parcels, zoned C1 and R1 … for Ed Morris to make his proposed ALF project work he needs use of the R1 for parking. The Sage Senior Living Development project hinges on whether the R1 parcel is ‘legally’ abandoned. Last year, Tredyffrin’s solicitor Vince Donohue provided an opinion letter in regards to the grandfathering usage of parking on the 1-acre R1 parcel. Although the Jimmy Duffy property has remained abandoned for several years, Donahue was of the opinion that the nonconforming use of parking remains available to the owner.

At least one other attorney did not share Donahue’s legal opinion that the nonconforming use of parking in the R1 parcel can continue. In a July 20, 2012 Community Matters article, “Tredyffrin’s Proposed C1 Zoning Amendment Change … Where do we go from here?” attorney John Petersen offered his opinion,

Perhaps the bigger issue is the R1 parking and whether it is grandfathered. There are four reasons why Vince Donahue’s analysis in his opinion letter is flawed:

  1. There has been a change in ownership
  2. The catering business ceased at least 3-5 years ago
  3. Mr. Donahue’s analysis leaves it to a reasonableness standard
  4. Donahue cites fact in support of his conclusion as opposed to case law

The conclusion in Mr. Donahue’s opinion is that the zoning officer “Could not reasonably conclude that the use has lapsed.” In fact, I just gave a number of reasons why Matt Baumann, our zoning officer, could reasonably conclude that the use did lapse. In fact – I’d say that based on these facts – Baumann couldn’t reasonably conclude the use didn’t lapse. If the township tries to grandfather this use, that itself could be a prima facie case of contract zoning – which is always construed to be spot zoning. Ironically, where the PC and at least some on the BOS thought they were helping this project along, they actually did more to harm it by not following sound process and procedure.

Whether or not the grandfathering of the R1 parking is permitted is the key to the Sage Senior Living Development project. For the project to move forward with the Planning Commissioners will require a resolution. The Planning Commission is 7 PM tonight at the Township Building.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme