Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Long-Term Pension Reform … Only Solution For Pennsylvania Taxpayers

June 7, 2012
41 Comments

As school boards across the state are scrambling to balance their own budgets, it’s also crunch time in Harrisburg. At this point, it is unclear how much help the Governor and his administration is willing to provide in the budget for education. Even if Corbett restores some of the education funding in the state budget, it seems impossible that the economic crisis in school districts will be solved.

School boards have been put in the difficult position of making tough decisions on educational programming cuts, staff reductions, increased class sizes, etc. in an attempt to balance budgets. But looking ahead, how does the state and local school districts handle the inevitable … the pension tsunami. Whether it is the pensions of the state government workers or the public school teachers, how is it possible to solve this seemingly impossible situation?

The State Employee Retirement System (SERS) and Public School Employment Retirement Association (PSERS) enjoyed huge investment gains in the 1990’s and the pension funds climbed to 123 percent. In their wisdom at the time, legislators decided to reduce the state’s contribution in May 2001 (known as Act 9). However, without the benefit of crystal ball forecasting, four months later the world plunged into a recession and the pension funds balances began to fall. Unfortunately the state’s pension problems were increased with the passage of Act 40 in 2002, which allowed the state to continue to lower their contributions to the pension, increased the employee contribution rate to 7.5 percent and provided for a cost of living adjustment (COLA).

The next round to pound the state pension plans was the recession of 2008. As a result, the once overfunded pension system plummeted and is currently funded at around 80 percent. Couple the underfunded pensions with the fact that a wave of baby boomers are set to retire this year thru 2016. How are the school districts (taxpayers) going to make up the unfunded liabilities? Pennsylvania school boards are left to manage the 800-lb gorilla in the room – Harrisburg’s public pension crisis.

We know that the only solution to the problem is a long-term pension reform plan. I have written several articles on the absolute need to overhaul the pension system of Pennsylvania’s state workers. (If interested, enter ‘pension reform’ in the search box on the home page of Community Matters). It is no longer possible for the state to fund a traditional defined-benefit plan; a change to some type of 401(K) pension plan is needed (required) for all future state employees and public school teachers.

The move away from traditional defined benefit pension plans, where the investment risk is borne by the taxpayer, is long overdue. There really is no other way. Many legislators have addressed the need for pension reform, including our state representative, Warren Kampf (R-157) who held a town hall meeting on the subject this past March. (Click here).

The school districts do not control teacher pensions – Harrisburg does. The precarious, ‘at the edge of the cliff’ situation of school districts will continue as long as there is no pension reform. There is no ‘new’ news on the pension disaster; it has been staring lawmakers in the face for some time. But now that the pension crisis is upon us, the real question is … how do we get Harrisburg to act … and to act quickly!

Proposed C1 Zoning Change in Tredyffrin to Accommodate Developer and Specific Project

May 30, 2012
9 Comments

A couple of weeks have passed since supervisor JD DiBuonaventuro held a town hall meeting for members of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA). Also attending the meeting were township manager Mimi Gleason, zoning officer Matt Bauman, supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock, and planning commissioners Bob O’Leary, Tory Snyder and Trip Lukens. Representing the proposed project were developer Ed Morris, Berwyn Real Estate L.P., Capital Health representative Gerard Farrell and attorney Denise Yarnoff. The focus for the meeting is a 93-bed assisted living facility proposed for the old Jimmy Duffy’s catering site on Lancaster Ave. in Daylesford. The property is 2.069 acres, containing 1.069 acres of C1 Commercial and 1 acre of R1 Residential property. Current zoning does not permit this usage.

The mid-May meeting follows other DNA meetings, planning commission meetings and Board of Supervisor meetings where the assisted living project was discussed. Attending most of the meetings, I have now decided this proposed project represents something more significant than simply a NIMBY (Not-in-My-Back-Yard) syndrome for a local neighborhood. Residents raised questions about the proposed project including traffic, density, lighting, trash collection to name a few. Although certainly important issues to those residents most affected, I was not entirely convinced that an assisted living facility was a bad idea. In an attempt to gain community support, the developer made concessions at the town hall meeting – the latest sketch plan reduced the number of floors, closed off the back exit to adjourning Pennsylvania Ave from the site, enclosed trash collection, etc.

My problem with the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project has nothing to do with the specific project but rather, the way this project has seemingly been fast-tracked and given a green light to move forward. What do I mean? An assisted living facility is not currently on the list of permitted uses in the township’s C1 district. Because the current zoning does not permit an assisted living facility, traditionally a developer would seek either a variance or a conditional use for the project. When questioned at the October 2011 planning commission meeting as to why the applicant would not take this approach, attorney Denise Yarnoff responded that, “the process would delay the project, cause a financial burden, and not address all the project-related issues.”

If you are a developer and don’t want to see your proposed project bogged down by the time required to seek a variance or conditional use (and don’t want the additional cost this path would require) why not just get Tredyffrin Twp to change the zoning to accommodate your plans. Yes, that is exactly what has happened … an Ordinance Amendment draft to permit assisted living in C1 zoning was submitted by Yarnoff along with a $5,000 application fee. The ordinance amendment is scheduled for the Planning Commission’s July 19 meeting. In researching this situation, I have not been able to find any other project in the township in recent years where zoning usage was changed to accommodate a specific developer and specific project. What is it about this specific project or its developer that would warrant such special treatment by the township? I have no idea.

Anyone that is reading this post needs to recognize that this situation and the ramifications of the proposed zoning change is not just about the Daylesford assisted living project. Should the C1 zoning Ordinance Amendment continue down the green light path, the zoning change will permit assisted living in all C1 districts in the township. Should this ordinance amendment be approved, it means that a zoning change for a specific project, benefiting a specific developer will change the permitted uses for all C1 properties in Tredyffrin Township. So the next question is ‘why’ have a comprehensive plan?

According to the township website, the comprehensive plan “provides local officials with a highly effective planning tool that will support day-to-day decisions about future development so that they may be thoroughly rational and consistent …” I have to ask, is changing zoning to accommodate a specific project “rational” ? A comprehensive plan is in place to guide growth and development in an orderly manner … does changing zoning to accommodate a specific developer’s needs promote a fair and orderly process?

Beyond obvious concern that changing zoning for a specific project is precedent setting for the township, there’s something else. In April, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to spend $100,000 for a consultant to update commercial zoning regulations in the township. The consultant was hired to review the township’s existing commercial zoning and make recommendations. Would it not seem to make sense if the township (taxpayers) is spending $100K for professional zoning advice, there should be a moratorium on any zoning changes until after the expert presents his update? That is not to say that this assisted living project couldn’t move forward – the developer would just have to use either the variance or conditional use routes versus the zoning ordinance amendment change.

As follow-up to the town hall meeting, DNA president Trisha Larkin sent a series of questions to supervisor DiBuonaventuro in regards to the proposed assisted living project. A specific question and response from DiBuonaventuro caught my attention –

Larkin:
4. Why is there not a moratorium on commercial zoning (re-zoning) until the independent consultant comes back with some solid recommendations?

DiBuonaventuro:
This developer began talking to the Township last year, before a decision was made to begin work on the commercial zoning districts. The commercial zoning work is just beginning and will take another 18 months before it is completed. In fairness to the developer and to the bank that owns the property, a decision needs to be made one way or the other long before the completion of the commercial zoning work so the bank knows whether it should seek a different buyer.

Should the process for a land development project be based on what is ‘fair’ to a developer or the property’s owner (in this case Eagle Bank)? Or … should any proposed land development project be based on what is ‘fair’ to the community and its residents? Zoning decisions must be policed both from the top-down and from the bottom-up, using processes that encourage neighborhood residents to participate actively in decision-making. Citizen participation both gives voice to the interests of neighborhood residents and provides the most effective safeguard against corruption of the zoning process.

The rationale behind municipal zoning power is that effective land use planning is necessary to promote and protect the interests of the entire community. Those making land development decisions need to create the community that we, the residents, want.

I am going to be very curious to see how the assisted living project plays out … will the draft C1 ordinance amendment, as provided by the developer’s attorney, win the approval of the Planning Commissioners and go on to the Board of Supervisors for their final approval? Will DNA residents continue to voice their concerns over the project? Will other township residents view zoning changes to suit a specific project or to accommodate a particular developer as setting precedence … and therefore, worthy of further discussion?

Stay tuned; the outcome on this proposed zoning change may mean a new era for development in Tredyffrin Township.

Unionville-Chadds Ford School Board Approves Teacher Demotions, What does this mean for T/E teachers?

May 24, 2012
6 Comments

Sixteen months ago, I wrote an article titled, “Looking at Unionville-Chadds Ford School District – Is the ‘Handwriting on the Wall’ for TE?” The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District (U-CF) is similar to the T/E school district and the districts are often compared. Students from both school districts enjoy similar academic performance; both top performing school districts. On the SAT and PSSA, the performance of the districts places each in the top 1% statewide. We often seen the districts listed together for the similar quality of their education.

You may recall, the U-CF teacher contract expired June 30, 2010 without the signing of a new contract. The talks between the school board and teachers union continued but after six months, the PA Labor Relations Board assigned an arbitrator to resolve the bargaining impasse through a fact-finding report. The school board voted to accept the findings of the report whereas the teachers union rejected the report.

Two major suggestions contained in the report – (1) a provision for each union member to receive a one-time, nonrecurring paying in lieu of a raise in year one and an increase in the final two years of the contract and (2) that union members move to a new, cost-saving healthcare plan, Keystone Direct, in the second year of the contract. The U-CF school board sought to maintain quality care at a reduced rate and they suggested, “that the economic times are hard and that the teacher union has benefited greatly when times were good but they must now share in the sacrifice as the others.” The teacher union rejected the independent report and recommendations.

The U-CF school board and teachers union finally reached an agreement in September 2011, sixteen months after the expiration of their contract. I wrote of the agreement on September 13, 2011, and asked the question if there were any lessons for T/E as a result. What did the U-CF school board and teachers union finally agree to – Terms included:

  • Year 1 (2010-11) no pay increase for 2010-11
  • Year 2 (2011-12) 1% increase on the pay schedule, step movement, prep level movement
  • Year 3 (2012-13) $300 in each cell on the matrix, $700 one-time bonus, step movement, prep level movement

One of the sticking points in the U-CF school board – teacher contract negotiations had been over healthcare benefits (sound familiar). In the final U-CF agreement, the teachers contributed 7.5% in 2011-12 and 10% toward their healthcare costs.

Although the U-CF school district contract does not expire until June 2013, according to the Daily Local, their school board and teachers union members have been quietly meeting unofficially since January of this year, for preliminary contract talks without the expense of outside legal counsel. According to U-CF school board member, Jeff Leister, the early talks were “an attempt to find common ground, achieve greater certainty about the future and to avoid a lengthy process later in the year.” However, what’s the saying about the “best laid plans of mice and men” ? Unfortunately, the school board and teachers union are too far apart at this point, and both sides decided to end the preliminary contract discussions.

Leiser did comment that going forward the school board would adhere to a three-tier approach –

  1. What is in the best interest of the students and the quality of education
  2. Is the agreement sustainable under Act 1
  3. Is the agreement consistent with current economic conditions, and what I fair to ask of residents financially.

In reviewing the U-CF school board agenda of May 21, I did note something of interest:

Demotion Resolutions (2)
1. Approve the Demotion Resolution for Employee No. 2797, as attached
2. Approve the Demotion Resolution for Employee No. 866, as attached

The discussion and approval of demotion resolutions may explain why the preliminary contract talks have ceased between the U-CF school board and teachers union. Curious as to the contents of the demotion resolutions, I filed a right-to-know request with their open records officer. (If I receive a response, I will certainly post it).

In the Souderton School District, their school board and teachers union were unable to resolve contract negotiations and were aided by a state mediator. The mediator’s proposed bargaining agreement between the Souderton school board and teachers union was released – to read the overview, click here. The school board and the teachers union accepted the recommendations of the state mediator and signed a 5-year contract. The contact contains a salary freeze in the first 2 years; elimination of 2 “masters-plus” salary schedules; increased health care premium share; and reduced tuition reimbursement. There is a 1.6% reduction in the teacher salary schedule in the first year; no “step and column” movement for the first two years; then a 1 percent salary schedule increase in the last year and a return to “step and column” starting in the third year. It appears that significant concessions were required on behalf of the Souderton teachers union.

The Souderton school district budget of $107 million for 2012-13 includes a 3 percent real estate tax increase. The harsh reality of Souderton’s budget deficit required school board members to make some tough decisions to balance their budget, including eliminating middle school teaching positions, demotion of a language teacher, reducing the budgets of technology, facilities and supplies, increasing student parking and activity fees, etc.

Whether it is Souderton, Unionville-Chadds Ford or T/E, the reality of the economic crisis in Pennsylvania’s public school, is forcing school boards to make some very difficult budget decisions. A state assigned mediator was required in the contract negotiations of Souderton and U-CF to push their contract impasse, I wonder if the same will happen in T/E? Maybe having a hired professional negotiator will make the difference for TESD — I’m not sure if Souderton and U-CF took this approach. It would hard for the taxpayers to pay Jeffrey Sultanik’s legal bill if in the end, the negotiations still require an independent arbitrator.

Should School Districts (TESD) Use Fund Balances Instead of Educational Cuts and Teacher Demotions?

May 22, 2012
39 Comments

Should school districts, such as TESD use fund balances instead of educational cuts and teacher demotions? The answer according to Governor Corbett and some other Pennsylvania lawmakers, is yes.

Tredyffrin Easttown School District has amassed an enviable fund balance – $32 million; one of the largest in the state. There are those in the community that support the school board holding on to the “rainy day” reserve funds; primarily because of the dramatically increasing PSERS contributions over the next few years. We understand that the traditional package of retirement benefits for state employees and teachers has become unaffordable and pension reform is sorely needed (and sooner rather than later). I support the state switching to a defined-contribution model (401(k) type model) for new hires but that only prevents the underfunded-pension liability problem from worsening … the state has a current multi-billion dollar hole. But unlike T/E, the state has no “rainy day” fund. Trying to manage their budgets, the state’s pension crisis has pushed school districts across the state to the edge of the cliff. There are those that praise T/E for the good job they have done in holding onto their fund balance in spite of the pension crisis.

But not everyone in our school district supports T/E holding onto the $30+ million fund balance; suggesting that this money represents past overtaxing and belongs to the taxpayers and should be returned. Then there is the teacher union’s position that the fund balance should be used before utilizing budget strategies such as demotion or increasing class size. Some residents fear that as school district’s budget woes push them over the cliff, the state will look to Districts (such as T/E) to bail out their fellow school districts.

Governor Corbett has sent a message to Pennsylvania’s school districts; he believes that they should tap into their reserves instead of cutting programs or laying off teachers and staff. During a recent radio interview with Dom Giordana on CBS channel WPHT, Corbett said if school boards want to cut programs instead of spending more of their financial reserves, than the public should blame them – not his budget. According to Corbett, “Well, I look at the reserves as – it’s a rainy day fund. And this is a rainy day – we are in a rainy day.” If you are a supporter of our governor, then the message to T/E school board would be no educational cuts, spend the fund balance.

Taking Gov. Corbett’s message for school district’s to use their fund balances, a step further are State Rep. Mike Vereb (R-Montgomery County) and Mario Scavello (R-Monroe County). These two Republican lawmakers are developing legislation that would force school districts to use their reserve funds to balance their budget before they would be allowed to raise taxes. Vereb and Scavello want to either limit the amount of money that districts can hold in their “rainy day” reserves or ban the school districts from raising taxes if the money needed to balance the budget is available (in the fund balance).

In an article on Watchdog.org , “Pennsylvania School Districts have Tripled Savings in 15 Years”, it was stated that Pennsylvania school districts have more than $3.2 billion in reserve funds. Data from the PA Department of Education indicates that the reserve accounts have nearly tripled from $1.1 billion in 1996-97 to more than $3.2 billion last year.

The article included an interesting table listing the largest reserve fund increases in Pennsylvania since 1996-97; Tredyffrin Easttown School District has the distinction of coming in 7th in the state. In 1996-97, T/E had $4,333,661 and in fifteen years increased by more than $26 million to a current total of approximately $32 million. Amazing.

Largest Reserve Fund Increases Since 1996-97
Rank District 1996-97 2010-11 Increase
  1 Pittsburgh $47,013,209 $148,871,185 $101,857,976
  2 Downingtown $183,005 $50,803,447 $50,620,442
  3 Abington $1,509,021 $45,937,675 $44,428,654
  4 Lower Merion $6,584,556 $43,405,136 $36,820,580
  5 Altoona $1,509,021 $45,937,675 $44,428,654
  6 Bensalem $1,674,721 $28,564,360 $26,889,639
  7 Tredyffrin-Easttown $4,333,551 $31,026,455 $26,692,904

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vereb is “furious to find that many of the state’s school districts that are crying poor and blaming the state for their fiscal problems are sitting on surpluses, including one that totals $148 million.” Although Vereb supports school districts having an emergency reserve, he feels that the taxpayer is deserved an explanation as to why school districts with large fund balances are cutting programs and teachers and raising property taxes but refusing to use fund balances. That’s the reasoning behind the legislation that he and Scavello are working on — forcing the hand of school boards to use their fund balances before raising taxes.

T/E Teachers Union Turns on the Transparency Lights in Contract Negotiations

May 17, 2012
125 Comments

The teachers union in T/E school district, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA), provided an update on the negotiation process late last night. The basis for the union’s email was to deliver what the community members have been asking for from TEEA and the school board — transparency.

This latest press release from TEEA is comprehensive … and offers us ‘personal and up close’ information from the union’s perspective on the contract negotiation process. (Something that many of us have asked for, but told was not possible during the ongoing contract negotiations). With this latest communication, TEEA is laying the gauntlet down, providing us with documents that range from copies of their initial contract proposal, the District’s response to an explanation of the grievances.

On April 25, I wrote a post titled, ‘Seeking Transparency in TESD Teacher Contract Negotiations’ in which I called for transparency in the negotiations, suggesting that both sides ‘open the door’ and let the sunlight shine in. Because of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, even the discussion on Community Matters has turned to conjecture; a world of ‘he said, she said’, which is never good. Some will suggest that this latest attempt on the part of TEEA to be more transparent and inform the public is nothing more than a ‘tactic’ to win favorable support from the parents, students and taxpayers. I will respectfully disagree.

Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of the teacher’s proposal, clearly TEEA now sees the merits of the community hearing the facts. To date, misinformation was perpetuated and the line between fact and fiction blurred, with the public left to fill in the gaps between the partial or half-truths from either side. The teachers’ contract accounts for a significant part of the District’s budget and strongly influences the financial ‘bottom line’.

To read TEEA’s latest press release, ‘T/E Teachers, Counselors, and Nurses Offer Opinion on the Negotiation Process’, click here.

Click here to read the teacher’s union initial proposal dated January 9, which TEEA believed to be a starting point for discussion. Their offer contained a one-year salary freeze for all teachers, second year freeze for those at master level. According to the union, they also ‘made repeated verbal commitments to discuss changes to healthcare benefits’.

The School Board rejected the teacher’s initial proposal on February 9. Click here to read the District’s 113-page counter-offer to TEEA. According to TEEA, this is the only offer to date made by the Board. If you recall, several teachers had commented on Community Matters regarding the District’s offer, claiming that family health coverage was not included in the District’s offer. Many readers questioned whether the elimination of family health coverage was in the counter-proposal; suggesting that unless the public saw it ‘in writing’, the information may not be accurate.

We can now read the District’s counter-proposal and it appears clear to me that option for teachers to insure their spouses and/or children is indeed eliminated, as is dental and vision coverage. I do not see how it can be interpreted differently – there appears this offer has no option for teachers to have family health insurance coverage through their employment in TESD. In addition, to be clear, the District’s counter-proposal includes no option for the teachers ‘to buy’ health insurance for their families.

In their latest press release, TEEA goes on to detail other areas the District counter-proposal seeks to eliminate or reduce, some of which could be viewed as reasonable given the economic climate and the severity of the budget situation – example, reducing the teacher’s stipend rates on mentor programs and homebound instruction. The District in their counter-offer seeks to freeze teacher salaries indefinitely – given the economics, although not satisfactory, the school board probably feels they have little option.

TEEA revised their initial proposal (click here) and presented it to the District on February 29. The District responded that they were unwilling to discuss the health care benefits. According to TEEA, it was shortly afterward that the ‘demotions of professional staff for economic reasons’ became a viable budget strategy option. As a result, the public has watched the circus-like atmosphere that now ensues at school board and finance committee meetings which has included students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. Additionally, the last couple of meetings have included the District releasing information that TEEA has filed two grievances, leaving some of us with questions. The union addresses the grievance issue in a FAQ, click here to read.

As I have repeatedly stated in other posts, making the teacher contract negotiation process transparent for the public would help the community understand how our children will be taught and how our tax dollars will be invested. The relationship between teachers and school administrators is an important element in what shapes this school district. There is no better way to understand this relationship than to observe the contract negotiation process. However, based on the way this process has worked to date, to suggest that the current relationship between the teachers, administrators and school board is ‘strained’ would be quite an understatement!

With the release of this information from the teachers union, I believe that TEEA is attempting to shine light and bring transparency to the contract negotiation process. However, for the transparency process to be successful, requires open dialogue from both sides.

Is it possible that the District and TEEA can put the needs of the students and families first and at the same time, honor the public investment of taxpayers? Can both sides be more open about the negotiation process – talk truths to each other and to the public?

Fund Balance Transfer, Another TEEA Grievance & Demotion Remains an Option in T/E!

May 15, 2012
65 Comments

I attended last night’s marathon Board of Supervisors meeting and public hearing continuation on the Trout Creek Overlay district. For the first 20 minutes, Keene Hall was overflowing with a standing room only crowd to witness the swearing-in of Tredyffrin’s new Superintendent of Police Tony Giaimo. Family, friends, co-workers and elected officials from the community and beyond, enthusiastically supported the appointment. I also add my ‘Congratulations Tony’!

Three-fourths of the audience left following the ceremony and then it was back to ‘business as usual.’ Comments from the Trout Creek Overlay working group, a developer update and discussion from supervisors and residents took the public hearing to 11 PM. I’ll offer my remarks in another post. The T/E School Board meeting was held at the same time as the supervisors meeting and Ray Clarke kindly provided his notes on that meeting.

As I understand it, the teachers union, TEEA has filed two grievances against the District. At the last District finance meeting, we were told of the one filing ($1 million expense), which pertained to the additional high school teaching period not covered in their contract. Since September, the teachers have had 6 teaching periods rather than 5 periods. However, the community learned last night that those teachers affected by the additional teaching period are seeking a one-time payment of $2.2 million, as compensation for this extra period of work.

Although the school board unanimously approved using some of the District’s fund balance for 2012-13 budget gap, the three budget strategies remain under consideration – (1) soliciting tax exempt property owners in lieu of taxes, (2) increasing class size and (3) demotion of professional staff for economic reasons.

Here are Ray’s notes from last night’s school board meeting:

There were two you-better-be-paying-attention moments in tonight’s drawn-out meeting, marked otherwise by earnest students delving at length into school funding and opportunities for tax increases and donations, restrained only by the Solicitor waving placards announcing that their time was up.

First, in a discussion about risks to the “Proposed Final Budget”, we were reminded about the $1.4 million of revenue risk from commercial appeals and the $1 million of expense risk from the union appeal of having to teach 6 periods. Then the solicitor was asked to report on another grievance just filed by the TEEA. As last time, much incoherent mumbling, but it appears that the new grievance covers the same issue as the first one, but it goes back to the current year, adds some kind of multiplier and that’s worth another $2.2 million.

Fast forward to the very end of the meeting, Karen Cruickshank reads a statement about the negotiations that essentially says:

  • It’s a new world
  • The district has nothing for salary, wages and benefits (SW&B) increases
  • All other employee groups have made concessions or had salaries frozen
  • The Board does not like asking people to work more for less, but that’s reality for many taxpayers
  • The next steps would be to revisit demotions and then all non-mandated programs
  • “Everyone has to give up something”, and if so, there can be a solution
  • In response to resident questions: a) Both sides are represented by professional negotiators because the stakes are high, and b) if the Board talked directly to teachers they would open themselves up to potential Unfair Labor Practice charges
  • The next negotiation session is on June 7th

You would think that the Board position would be straightforward: here’s how much money we have (assume tax increases of index plus exceptions; at some point PSERS and maybe even Special Ed increases will begin to tail off), work with us to figure out how it should be allocated. The Projection Model for combined SW&B would be pretty much the line in the sand, you would think.

It appears as though the TEEA strategy is set up an extreme position for possible arbitration, and to seize as much as possible from the fund balance while it’s there, and keep the pressure on the citizenry to support new funding sources (sales or income taxes, or some change in the Act 1 index?). The $1 million from the original grievance would be an ongoing expense, but – if I understood it right – the $2.2 million would be one time.

The budget with the $1.55 million fund balance contribution was approved 9-0, but it’s clearly not final. They still have not updated the compensation costs for the retirements/replacements, which will bring a material saving. And the class size and demotion issues are still on the table. The next Finance Committee on June 11th (still at the TEAO) will hopefully bring us some decisions and accurate numbers. (But not likely a negotiations breakthrough from June 7th – what are the negotiators doing for the next three weeks, anyway?)

If anyone wants to weigh in on the donations issue, it will be discussed at the Policy Committee on May 23rd at 6:30pm in the TEAO. The June 14th Board meeting for Final Budget adoption will be in the CHS cafeteria.

Jimmy Duffy Redevelopment Project … Does the End Justify the Means?

May 15, 2012
17 Comments

This is a follow-up to an earlier post, Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?

Last week’s town hall meeting included an update on the redevelopment project from developer Ed Morris, who was accompanied by Capital Health Group, LLC representative Gerard Farrell and their attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco. In addition to members of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) was Mimi Gleason, township manager and Matt Bauman, township zoning officer, 3 supervisors (JD DiBuonaventuro, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock) and 3 Planning Commissioners (Bob O’Leary, Tory Synder and Trip Lukens).

Perhaps the intentions of the meeting were good but overall, I found the meeting less than satisfactory as an audience member. Having attended the 2 planning commission meetings (September, October 2011), 2012 January Board of Supervisors meeting and developer-DNA public meeting this past February (where this project was discussed), I expected that this latest meeting would give local residents an opportunity to really be ‘heard’ by those representing our government, in addition to an update from the developer. I did not leave the meeting feel that mission was accomplished.

The discussion surrounding the Jimmy Duffy project is confusing … on one hand, there has been no formal land development plan presented to the township by Capital Health. (Currently, the C-1 and R-1 zoning of the Duffy property does not allow for an assisted living facility.) Yet, on the other hand, based on the number of meetings and input from planning commissioners, supervisors and township staff, suggests that this project has advanced beyond a vague, casual stage.

Eagle Bank owns the Jimmy Duffy property and with the current economic climate, I’m guessing may be willing to sell it for a significantly reduced price. However, a developer probably would not want to purchase the property unless there was a degree of assurance that the deal would go through so … he/she would be looking for ‘buy-in’ to the project from the community and the local government; hence the visits to and discussions with, the planning commissioners.

However, here’s the ‘dicey’ part for me and what I do not understand. Although Ed Morris has made concessions in his latest draft drawings of his project (one less floor, more trees, etc) he still has the problem that the current zoning does not permit this usage of the property. Current zoning only permits assisted living in the Industrial Overlay district and that has a 10 acre minimum requirement. As I understand township zoning, an applicant would need to take his land development plan to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance to build the project on the 2-acre Duffy site. But rather than taking the variance route, the discussion has evolved to Ed Morris writing an amendment to the current C-1 zoning ordinance to include assisted living as an acceptable use. Although I have been told that it is a normal, and acceptable practice, for a developer to draft zoning ordinance language, it certainly appears odd and rather self-serving to me. But I certainly do not claim to be a zoning or planning expert!

Former township supervisor and Zoning Hearing Board member John Petersen weighs in with his opinion on the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project. He has submitted the following op-ed article, ‘Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy Catering site is a bad idea’ to Main Line Media News for publication:

Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy’s Catering site is a bad idea

This critique has nothing to do with the project’s underlying merits. It may very well be that an assisted living use may be a good idea on the 2 acre site in spite of the fact that such a use is currently only permitted on a 10+ acre parcels. Rather, this critique has to do with the process and procedure surrounding the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Planning Commission’s (PC) apparently affinity to abandon established process and procedures in favor of fast-tracking said project on said site. To fast track the development, the BOS and PC are considering the drastic step of adding assisted living as an approved use in the C1 zoning district. There are 3 basic and simple reasons why the BOS and PC are yet again, showing an astonishing lack of judgment.

1. The project developer, already has a remedy that has not been exhausted
The developer has not applied for a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). A zoning variance allows for a use or condition that exists outside the current zoning regulations. If the ZHB were to grant a variance, a wholesale change to zoning would not be required. The benefit is that the change applies only the specific parcel and can be tailored to only apply to current owner. When asked about a variance, developer’s counsel replied “That would take too long.” I used to sit on the BOS and the ZHB and I don’t recall “Taking too long” as being a bona-fide reason to abandon procedure. It’s also been reported that the township’s zoning officer kept “deferring” to applicant’s counsel. That is highly irregular. In effect, applicant’s counsel is dictating and driving procedure, and in this case, changing it for the benefit of the developer. It is certainly to the developer’s benefit to have the zoning changed since that would obviate the need to seek a variance. As one supervisor pointed out at the town hall meeting “It’s not the BOS’s job to seek out projects.” Yet, that is exactly what is happening here. At the very least, this project sought out this BOS and PC. Regardless of how they found each other, the BOS and PC seem ready, willing and able to give this specific developer, this specific project and this specific parcel of land special treatment. This sets a dangerous precedent.

2. The BOS just committed to spend $100K on a review of its ZO
Some would point out that grant money makes the net cost only $30K. However, those grants are not guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is the $100K consulting appropriation. Only when and if the revised zoning, based on the consultant’s recommendations are approved, do the grants have the potential to be realized. Once the BOS committed to having the ZO reviewed, a moratorium on zoning changes should have been established. What if this contemplated new use in C1 is deemed to be a less than optimal use? It appears foolish to tweak something that is about to undergo a comprehensive and expensive review.

3. The process and procedure (or lack thereof) sets a precedent for future developers and projects
The BOS and PC might as well put a large for sale sign on the township. Consider the next developer who seeks to develop a C1 parcel or perhaps a residential or industrial parcel with a use that is not contemplated under the ZO. What are the BOS and PC going to say then? No? That developer may have a very good case to take to court. Zoning must be non-prejudicial. It must be a-political. Zoning represents 50-100 year decisions. These are long term in nature. The costs of making wrong decisions are high. We are already dealing with storm water problems in the township that are due, in part, to bad planning. Good planning begins with a vision that is independent of any specific project. The goal is to have consistent and compatible uses that meet the divergent needs of residents and businesses (retail, commercial and sometimes industrial). You don’t begin with specific projects and let the model shake out from there. We have a zoning map that will now undergo review based on the results of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Process. At the same time, a new use will be added to C1. And very likely, there will be another parcel in the township that this developer or another developer will seek to develop for another non-permitted use? Based on this precedent, the BOS will be obliged to say yes because the BOS cannot and has not offered a single articulable rational basis for this decision. And let’s not forget that there are no plans in front of the PC. How can this possibly be contemplated now? How is this not favoritism – the problem encountered with spot-zoning?

Conclusion
The 3 aforementioned reasons make it clear that the contemplated actions of the BOS and PC are not in the best interest of this community because the actions represent a departure from established procedures. The actions do not represent what could be considered best-practices insofar as zoning and land use procedure is concerned. Any developer should first submit plans to the PC and where necessary, seek a variance. As a record proceeding, citizens have an opportunity to be present and heard. If that variance is granted, the citizens at least have legal recourse to have such a decision reviewed by the Court. If the variance is denied, then the developer can then seek to have the use added. In that event, the BOS and PC have the benefit of the ZHB proceedings to make a better, more informed decision.

In a civilized society, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means – especially in the case when there are the means to do things the right way – within the framework of existing policies and procedures.

John V. Petersen
Paoli, PA

$1.5 Million Budget Deficit … Will T/E Use Fund Balance in Lieu of Demotion or Increasing Class Size?

May 14, 2012
Comments

Click here to see the draft on the 2012-13 final budget of TESD to be presented at tonight’s school board meeting – 7:30 PM, TESD administration office, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Click here for the agenda. Thanks to Community Matters reader Roberta Hotinski for providing the updated information and link from the District.

The draft budget reflects a proposed tax increase of 3.3% … 1.7% from Act 1 Index ($1.5 million) and 1.6% from Act 1 Exceptions ($1,498,916). Based on an average residential assessment of $252,601, the average tax increase proposed by the budget is $155 to the taxpayer.

Applying the previously accepted strategies, the District’s budget deficit for 2012-13 is $1,547,888. Now here is the curious part … you will note on page 3 of the proposed final budget (see below) that next to the $1.5 million+ deficit are the words “Satisfied with Fund Balance Contribution”. At both the last school board meeting and the finance committee meeting, when various residents asked school board members about using some of the $32 million fund balance for the budget shortfall, that option was quickly dismissed (with little discussion). School board members were unwilling to discuss using the fund balance to bridge the budget gap but rather focused attention on the remaining strategies of (1) soliciting tax exempt property owners in lieu of taxes, (2) increasing class size and (3) demotion of professional staff for economic reasons.

For the record, page 7 of the proposed final budget continues to list strategies, N-14, Solicit Tax Exempt Property Owners in Lieu of Taxes, N-16, Demotion/Attrition of Professional Staff for Economic Reasons – $640,328 and N-19, Increase Class Size by One at Each Level – $607,500. However, based on the proposed fund balance transfer listed on page 3 of the budget, it would appear that the school board might have changed their mind in regards to demotion and increased class size as budget strategies.

If I am interpreting the District budget proposal correctly in regards to the fund transfer, this could be good news for those supporting the District teachers most in risk of demotion. Additionally, maybe this new information will begin to move the teacher contract negotiations forward towards a peaceful resolution. Here’s hoping!

 

US News Ranks Conestoga High School #3 in Pennsylvania, #279 Nationwide!

May 10, 2012
4 Comments

Between the final tweaking of the District budget for 2012-13 and the continuing teacher contract negotiations, it is timely that the US News & World Report releases its list of the best high schools in America. The publication reviewed test data from 22,000 public high schools and 500 schools received the highest ‘gold’ level award. Conestoga High School received gold level standing, listing at a distinctive rank of 279 of all public high schools in the country. The US News results indicate an impressive #3 ranking for Conestoga for all public schools in Pennsylvania.

There are 579 school districts in Pennsylvania and 752 high schools. As part of the state’s graduation requirement, PA high school students take assessments in reading, writing, math, and science in the 11th grade. US News Report uses the Pennsylvania Systems of School Assessment (PSSA) is used in the criteria for ranking the high schools. Conestoga scored 54.3 on the college readiness index, based on AP (Advanced Placement) participation rate. The AP participation rate at Conestoga is 56%.

In 11th grade, Pennsylvania school students take Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests in reading, writing, math and science. Here’s the breakdown on the reading and math proficiency results for Conestoga High School students:

PSSA Reading Proficiency results:
Total Students Tested 491
Below Basic: 2%
Basic: 5%
Proficient: 23%
Advanced: 70%
Results indicate 92% proficiency rate in reading.

PSSA Math Proficiency results:
Total Students Tested 478
Below Basic: 3%
Basic: 4%
Proficient: 20%
Advanced: 73%
Results indicate 93% proficiency rate in math.

Here the list of the top 10 high schools in Pennsylvania:

#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

Interesting to note that 2 of the top 10 public high schools in the state are located in Philadelphia!

Locally, how did our neighboring high schools rank. Radnor High School made the top ten list in Pennsylvania at #6 and achieved a national rank of 432, qualify for gold level. Lower Merion High School received silver level nationwide, coming in at 835 and ranked #16 in the state. Great Valley High School was listed at the silver level nationwide, at 725 and #12 in the state. Phoenixville High School, another silver level, ranked 1,094 nationwide and #25 in Pennsylvania.

Congratulations to Conestoga students, parents and teachers on this achievement!

Teachers Union Files Grievance against T/E over Additional Teaching Period

May 8, 2012
121 Comments

Have you ever attended a meeting where you left shaking your head in confusion and wondering exactly what was decided? Last night’s Finance Committee meeting of the school district was that kind of meeting for me. I would think it was just me, except that following up with Ray Clarke, who also attended the meeting; I took solace that some of what was said too confused him.

Unfortunately, if Ray and I were a tad confused, I fear that the standing-room only crowd in attendance may be likewise. Here are some of the highlights; if you attended the meeting, and find that, I misunderstood the information, please jump in.

The remaining 2012-13 budget deficit is $1.5 million. There are 3 budget strategies under review to bridge the gap:

  1. Strategy N-14: Solicitation of tax-exempt property owners for payment in lieu of taxes. A letter from the District would go to these property owners requesting a payment in lieu of taxes equal to 10% of the total amount if their property was not tax-exempt. The District will do the research and insert the actual dollar amount of what they would pay (if not tax-exempt) along with the requested 10 percent amount. There is a potential of $5 million from the 308 tax-exempt property owners. This is a 2-prong approach – the District will be quantifying to see if any property owners have lost their non-profit status and there should be paying taxes, and to ask for donations from non-profit property owners. Interesting to note that 2 of the largest non-profit property owners are Tredyffrin Township and Tredyffrin Easttown School District.
  2. Strategy N-19: Increase class size by one student. Grades K & 1 would go from 22 to 23 students, Grade 2 from 23 to 24 students, Grades 3 & 4 from 25 to 26 students and Grades 5 & 6 from 27 to 28 students. Estimated savings: $607K
  3. Strategy N-16: Demotion of professional staff for economic reasons. Estimated savings: $640K TESD solicitor Kenneth Roos attended the Finance Committee meeting and gave his legalize during the meeting, as needed. He explained that the District could not demote on merit because it is subjective. Demotion cannot be “arbitrary or capricious”. Dr. Waters offered that by demoting those with the highest salaries, the impact would be lessened with fewer teachers affected. The solicitor confirmed that the TEEA contract is silent on the subject of demotion.

Last year, budget strategies numbered 31-35 combined are listed as a cost savings of $1.125 million — these strategies were ultimately approved in the 2011-12 budget. Strategy 31 requires high school teachers to teach 6 periods per day, Strategy 32 maintains the 8 periods per day at Conestoga and limit students to 42 periods per cycle. Strategy 33 requires science lab teachers at Conestoga to teach 5 classes, Strategy 34 eliminates German and Latin in the middle school and final Strategy 35 curtails applied tech, FC and Tech Ed in Grades 5 and 6.

Because of increased teaching periods that started this school year, an announcement by school board member Betsy Fadem last night that was surprising. It is my understanding from Fadem and the solicitor that the teachers union has filed a grievance against the District in regards to the additional teaching period in the high school — Conestoga teachers are teaching 6 periods per day versus 5 periods.

The TEEA grievance topic was the number one most confusing, and least explained item of last night. Between Ray Clarke and me, we have tried to figure out what was said but there was little to go on. There is a potential $1 million price tag associated with this grievance, should the District lose. There is an additional problem (which could be costly in time and money) that’s the rescheduling required if TEEA prevails and the number of teaching periods returns to where it was before this budget strategy was imposed.

The statement from Roos on TEEA grievance was confusing. I absolutely do not understand the scope of the grievance, the timeline for appeal, associated costs, etc.; the public is owed a much more comprehensive explanation than was offered last night. We all left the meeting shaking our heads and not understanding this grievance issue. I couldn’t help but wonder is this a ‘balance of the scales’ contract strategy from TEEA against the ‘demotion talk’ from the school district? Please school board, can the taxpayers have transparency and explanation on this important issue. If there are any teachers who can shed light on the complaint, please help us understand.

The only other item I will mention from last night had to do with creating a way for residents to donate to the school district to help the budget. Many residents have spoken out that they would like to contribute with donations to the District, some suggesting that they were willing to see their taxes increased to ensure the quality of the T/E education. There was discussion about having a ‘button’ on the District’s website for contributions and setting up a foundation to collect donations (as a Great Valley organization recently did). In addition, FLITE is willing to have contributions go through their organization that would be earmarked for the District. A number of students and parents spoke out in support of voluntary contributions to the District.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme