Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

“A Job is Not a Life” … Mimi Gleason Resigns as Tredyffrin’s Township Manager

July 17, 2012
12 Comments

For those of us who attended last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, it went very late, until 11:30 PM. Now I have to wonder if the 4-hour marathon meeting had any bearing on this morning’s decision by our township manager.

Mimi Gleason has been Tredyffrin’s Township Manager for the last 7 years. Prior to becoming township manager in 2005, Mimi served under Joe Janasik as assistant Township Manager for 3 years. There was no indication at last night’s meeting of Mimi’s impending announcement this morning; and the news has taken many of us by surprise.

Rather than speculating on the reason behind Mimi’s decision to resign, I spoke at length with her this afternoon. She assured me that the decision to leave was completely her own rather than anyone pushing her in that direction. Mimi told the township supervisors and her staff this morning of her decision to resign; her last day will be September 17.

I asked Mimi why she was resigning – was it another job? No, she is not leaving Tredyffrin for another job. In fact, her explanation for the resignation was actually quite simple … “A job is not a life”. She went on to explain that she is uncertain about what she wants to do, but knows that she wants to do something different and to work less. Her plans after September 17 include taking a few months off from work, visiting friends around the country during the fall and her annual trip to Hawaii in January. Although Mimi does not view the decision to resign as some type of mid-life crisis, our conversation did turn philosophical as we discussed the importance of really ‘living’ life.

What has she enjoyed most about serving as our township manager? An easy question, she responded “… the people … the staff … the volunteers … the groups she works with”. I then asked what she liked least about the job and that proved another easy question. Her quick response, “night meetings!” Based on last night’s supervisors meeting that ran until 11:30 PM, I could not help but think that may have made her decision this morning a little bit easier.

Wondering if Mimi could be cajoled into extending that September 17 deadline, I asked her that question. No, her mind is made up. Remembering her words, “a job is not a life”, Ms. Gleason has some living she wants to do!

I know that you join me in wishing Mimi well; wherever this life’s journey takes her. We thank her for her ten years of service to the residents of this community and can take some solace in knowing that this was ultimately her decision, and no one else’s.

Tredyffrin Township: What Price Economic Growth?

July 16, 2012
25 Comments

What price economic growth …

  • What is the price tag for economic development in Tredyffrin Township?
  • Is it OK to green light a land development project even when it doesn’t meet current zoning regulations?
  • Is it right for a developer and his attorney to create a zoning ordinance amendment to Tredyffrin Zoning Code to suit their needs for a particular project?
  • As a community, do we want zoning amendment changes in Tredyffrin Township without restrictions, requirements or conditional uses?
  • If you are a developer considering a project in Tredyffrin but cannot find suitable zoning, that may not be an obstacle to your plans. All you need to do is write a new ordinance, call it economic development and then watch as the plan moves forward.

This post is an update on the old Duffy catering site on Lancaster Ave. and the proposed assisted living facility. The vacant Duffy property contains approximately 2 acres, with a 1 acre parcel zoned C-1 and a 1 acre parcel zoned R-1. Current zoning does not permit an assisted living facility in C-1 or R-1 in Tredyffrin Township.

With an idea to build a 93-bed/79-unit multi-story assisted living facility on the C-1 parcel, the developer Ed Morris through his attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco, submitted a zoning ordinance amendment change to the township to permit assisted living as a C-1 usage.

Tredyffrin Zoning Code currently addresses assisted living facilities in IO (Institutional Overlay) zoning and includes four pages of restrictions and regulations, including residential density, bed density, buffers, setbacks, etc. in addition to a 10-acre minimum acreage requirement. Yarnoff skillfully, and in the best interests of her client, reduced the four pages of regulations to a one sentence zoning ordinance amendment change. She offers no restrictions, regulations or conditional uses … just a C-1 amendment that would allow assisted living in C-1 zoning. I give Yarnoff credit – as the attorney for Ed Morris, she is certainly maximizing the land development needs of her client. Assuming Yarnoff gets this C-1 zoning amendment change, then it should be full-steam ahead for Morris to build his assisted living facility — 93 beds/79 units on 1 acre.

Members of the public do not dare call this proposed action ‘spot zoning’. Supervisors, Planning Commissioners and township staff cringe when residents refer to this proposed change as spot zoning – telling us that it can’t be spot zoning if the change affects all C-1 zoning in the township. On the flip-side, some of these same people tell us there are no plans for assisted living facilities in any other township C-1 locations. As I see it, they cannot have it both ways.

A quick real estate Google search indicates a Tornetta Realty Corp. listing of 6.1 acres of ‘Prime Development’ C-1 land available for $3.5 million at 1057 Howellville Road, Berwyn. Now here’s a thought — if Yarnoff’s proposed zoning amendment change can permit 93 beds/79 units on 1 acre in Daylesford, then by my calculations, there would be room for 560 beds on Tornetta’s 6.1 acres in Berwyn. (Click here to see Tornetta’s Howellville Rd. listing)

I don’t know why certain supervisors and planning commissioners would have us believe that assisted living facilities are not planned for any other C-1 locations. Seems to me that the C-1 land on Howellville Road for sale would present an excellent opportunity for Morris, Yarnoff et al to build a sister location to their Daylesford assisted living facility! And remember folks, no official land development plan has been submitted to the township for this project; this is about changing zoning in anticipation of a plan! Yarnoff’s proposed amendment change for C-1 zoning is being considered without the submission of a land development plan. What’s the saying about the “cart before the horse”?

But aside from any concerns about putting 93 beds/79 units on a 1-acre site, I take an exception to the township’s handling of this land development plan and making changes to zoning to suit a particular developer. Where is the voice of the residents? When elected or appointed officials characterize citizen activism as politics, they’re attempting to marginalize the citizens’ concerns. The most-affected neighbors to this proposed project, the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) with Trisha Larkin as president, have banded together hoping to have their collective voice heard. Their green and white ‘No C-1 Zoning Change’ signs are populating township lawns and the support is building beyond the immediate neighborhood. Much like George Lucas’ storm troopers in Star Wars, the DNA and their supporters are organizing and preparing for battle but … will it be enough to turn the tides?

Although no land development plan has been officially filed with the township, some seemingly already have the facility built. Let’s disregard the required process in favor of what some officials believe should be the desired outcome. The proposed C-1 zoning ordinance change is on the agenda for Thursday, July 19 Planning Commission meeting — concerned township citizens plan to attend. Right now, I am not certain that their voices will make a difference. According to tonight’s Board of Supervisors agenda, the supervisors will “Schedule Public Hearing to be held on August 20, 2012, to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, Article XVII §208-65, C-1 Commercial District, Use Regulations to permit a new use: “residential care facility for older persons providing permanent residential accommodations and/or assisted living facilities/services (and supplemental services)”.

Additionally, I have learned that on July 5 the township sent a letter, formally requesting that the Chester County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and provide a formal recommendation on Ed Morris’ proposal to change C-1 zoning. The C-1 zoning amendment change as sent to CCPC is the version written by Morris and Yarnoff, with no restrictions, requirements or conditional use. The deadline for CCPC comment is by August 5 … no accident that the deadline is prior to the proposed August 20 public hearing date.

From my vantage point, the scheduling of the public hearing on the proposed C-1 zoning change and the review request by Chester County Planning Commission in advance of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting is preemptive of the process and citizen input. To move this process along before hearing the concerns of the community is to marginalize the voices of the citizens. Balancing public concerns requires public input and is crucial in determining the pros and cons of development and possible zoning ordinance changes. Residents deserve respect and an opportunity to receive answers from those elected to represent us.

Why the rush to push this zoning ordinance change through? Why no bed density restrictions or regulations? Why no conditional use?

And let’s not forget that Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors hired a consulting team in April to conduct an 18-month, $100,000 analysis of the township’s commercial zoning ordinances. This proposal to change the township’s C-1 zoning ordinance is preemptive of the consultant’s analysis which begs a question — why is this township spending $100K for a consultant to analyze the township zoning and make recommendations?

Tredyffrin Township’s Constitutional Conversations: The Battle for Ratification

July 10, 2012
2 Comments

Segment 2, ‘The Battle for Ratification’ of the Constitutional Conversations cable series is now available for viewing. According to the description provided by co-hosts Rich Brake and Dennis Gallagher, this segment discusses “… the process and the political intrigue surrounding the ratification of America’s new Constitution. They also introduce how the two founding father groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated and resolved their philosophical differences to arrive at a compromise resulting in America’s new system of government.”

I watched Segment 2 of the series, and with no disrespect intended, it took me 3 failed attempts before I could get past the first 10 min. of the 29-min. show. Although both Brake and Gallagher are identified as ‘Constitution Scholars’, from my vantage point it seemed that Gallagher’s role was that of an interviewer asking questions, with responses left to Brake. Not that there is anything wrong with that approach, I just think it is a bit of a misnomer that they refer to themselves as co-hosts. In my opinion, this segment was a bit disjointed in the delivery of information with some technical, editing and sound issues, making it difficult to follow at times.

When discussing the ratification of the Constitution, many nuances exist between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist point of views and they should be thoroughly considered — each group waged a verbal war in hopes of winning public support for their side. The supporters of the Constitution, the Federalists, argued that the nation needed a stronger national government to create order and stability whereas the anti-Federalists supported the states’ rights approach to government. Arguing that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, the Bill of Rights became a weapon of defense and the most effective tool for the anti-Federalists. They demanded a more balanced Constitution, one that would be careful to protect the rights of the people and to set limitations on the power of the government. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights and they did not want an intimidating national government taking those rights away again. Although the anti-Federalists lost the ratification battle, the Bill of Rights stands as a lasting testament to the importance of individual rights.

I found Brake’s discussion of citizen representation interesting. He compares the increased size of voting districts today versus the size they were at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and ponders the question, “Can representation actually take place well, in a setting that is large and distant from the public?” Due to the size of voting districts, Brake talks about the increased resources and finances required by politicians seeking office today. Due to the financial demands of political campaigns, Brake laments that is likely that only the financially elite can afford to seek office. As a result, there is a risk that elected ‘elite’ may not necessarily represent those that they seek to serve. As a proponent of campaign finance reform, I agree with Brake on this point.

In the discussion of the original 10 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, Brake identifies several, including freedom of speech, religion, petition, right to bear arms, freedom from search and seizure, right to counsel, etc. He points specifically to the importance of the 10th amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Based on Brake’s emphasis on the rights of the States under the Constitution, I was surprised that he did not use the opportunity to discuss the 10th amendment as related to the Supreme Court decision on the health care bill. There are some, including Mitt Romney who believe that the 10th Amendment places the responsibility and care of health care to the people with the individual states.

I lay no claim as a ‘Constitution Scholar’ and offer these remarks on Constitutional Conversations solely as my opinion. I suggest taking 29 minutes, watch Segment 2: Battle for Ratification, and offer your own thoughts. Click here to watch the second installment of Constitutional Conversations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

 

Long Awaited Report from Tredyffrin Twp Business Development Advisory Council … Soon to be released

June 10, 2012
20 Comments

Because of increasing empty storefronts and vacant corporate buildings, I wrote a post fourteen months ago asking if there was anything that could be done to attract new businesses and stimulate long-term, stable, economic growth in our community. In the February 2, 2011 article, I said,

I wonder if a township business task force would help . . . a volunteer group of local retired executives, small business owners, and corporate representatives. The group would meet monthly with a mission to spearhead ways to improve existing relationships and provide assistance and a resource for township businesses. This important support group for the business community could provide regular updates and suggestions to the Board of Supervisors. Just an idea . . .

A couple of months after this article appeared in Community Matters, the Board of Supervisors approved the creation of a Tredyffrin Business Development Advisory Council in April 2011. Supervisors Michele Kichline, Phil Donohue and Mike Heaberg held meetings with local companies, real estate and leasing representatives, etc. and designed a model for this volunteer advisory group.

Following the establishment of the criteria, community members wishing to participate were asked to submit letters of interest for consideration. From the 20 applications received, six residents were chosen to serve on the advisory board including Dan Fishbein, VP of BNY Mellon; Eric Kleppe, Turner Investments; Stanford Nishikawa, junk-bond analysis and private investor; Jim Sanborn, Gen Manager, Interstate & Ocean Transport Company; John Susanin, SSHH Real Estate and Bill Thomsen, Urban Engineers. In my November 15, 2011 Community Matters post, I provided the announcement of the advisory group members and their mission,

“This group was chosen for its cross section of business, strategic, planning and marketing expertise. They are highly skilled citizens who do not currently serve on our boards and commissions and have agreed to take a critical look at all aspects of the Township that relate to business development and business retention. This includes, but is not limited to zoning, transportation and marketing.”

In addition to supervisors Kichline, Donahue, Heaberg, and the six citizens listed above, four community liaison members were named to assist the group – Tory Snyder, Planning Commission; Beth Brake and Donna Shipman, Community Affairs and Small Business; and to represent the Paoli Business community, Dave Rowland.

As explained last fall by the supervisors, the group would work together for 4-6 months and then present their findings, which were to include recommendations and suggestions. As follow-up to their public report, it was intended that a long-term business advisory group would be created. It was recently announced that the advisory group is completing their study and will present their report at the supervisors meeting on June 18. I look forward to their report and am hopeful that there will be some positive news. However, I was troubled to learn yesterday from one of the named liaisons to the group – Donna Shipman that she was never contacted by the advisory group nor was she asked to provide input. According to Donna, she contacted several supervisors to express her concern but there was no follow-up from the advisory group.

This information is concerning … was Donna’s experience as a liaison to this advisory group an isolated situation? Were the other three liaison members involved and part of the process? As they conducted their research, who in the community was contacted by the advisory group? Did they speak with members of the small business community, corporate and real estate representatives, the township staff? I believe that there was potential for the Business Development Advisory Council to make a difference in the community through outreach and research … did the group achieve their mission?

We are all interested in the revitalization of our community and the current economic climate presents unique challenges. The political influence of elected leadership is critical to helping communities stay the course toward a vibrant economic future. Dedicated leadership is needed to raise awareness, help develop and communicate a common vision and motivate the community into action. Our elected officials have opportunities every day to effect change and promote a strategic vision of economic growth for their community growth. Is this a priority of our elected officials and if so, how successful are they in meeting the objective?

At a friend’s suggestion, I recently spent some time driving and walking around downtown Malvern. By the way, I would encourage everyone to take the time and visit this place … talk about economic redevelopment! Wow. It is so exciting to see all the changes and development, including adaptive re-use of existing buildings and new construction, in their town center. As an example, the original old Malvern fire company building, off King Street, was restored and retrofitted for mixed-use; the lower level commercial and upper level residential condominiums. Brick walkways, Victorian light posts and flowering planters line the downtown area the length of King Street; a total renaissance is occurring in this small borough, next-door to the west of us.

I want what Malvern has managed to achieve, for ‘our’ community. Malvern, Phoenixville, Wayne, West Chester, Media – all these places are faced with similar economic issues as ‘us’, yet these places are moving ahead in spite of the challenges … so why can’t we?

Looking forward to the public report from Tredyffrin Township’s Business Development Advisory Council on June 18; I want to hear the group’s ideas and suggestions on ways to revitalize and stimulate economic growth in our community.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme