Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Tredyffrin’s 2012 Preliminary Budget Indicates 6.9% Increase . . . But the Math Doesn’t Add Up!

November 16, 2011
12 Comments

At Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, our township manager Mimi Gleason presented Tredyffrin’s preliminary budget for 2012 that indicates a 6.9% millage real estate increase will be required to balance the budget. As she does each year, Gleason presented a budget summary, which was designed as an overview of the township’s current financial picture. Included in the summary are 2011 budget and forecasted revenue and expenditures through the end of the year plus the 2012 preliminary budget. Two summary tables marked ‘General Fund Revenue’ and ‘General Fund Expenditures’ are part of the township manager’s document dated November 10, 2011.

I do not know about you, but when I review budget data, I look at the totals, the ‘bottom line’ – just assuming that the math is correct. Laying no claim as a financial expert, when I reviewed the township’s budget memorandum, I accepted Ms. Gleason’s summary information as correct and her math as accurate. As the hired professional and chief executive officer of the township, in my view, she is the expert and I had no reason to question the accuracy of the information.

Resident and former township supervisor John Petersen reviewed Ms. Gleason’s budget summary and discovered multiple mathematical errors in the report. I learned of the mistakes in the budget information when I was copied on emails to Gleason, along with township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro and resident Ray Clarke.

In review of Gleason’s budget summary, the totals for the General Fund revenue and expenditure summary tables are incorrect. The 2012 budget revenue should be $16,467,175, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast is ($141,748). On the expenditure summary table totals, the 2011 Forecast should be $16,916,736 the 2012 Budget should be $16,926,204, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast should be $9,468. If you use these corrected totals from the revenue and expenditure tables, similar errors are now contained in Gleason’s summary description. In referring to 2011, Gleason states, “the year is forecast to end $377,000 under budget.” Due to mathematical error, this information is incorrect; the year is forecast to end $355,160 under budget, not $377,000. Gleason states the “General fund revenue is projected to decrease another $130,000 in 2012, for a total decrease of $330,000 versus the 2011 budget.” Correcting the math, the 2012 general fund revenue is projected to be $255,950 less than the 2011 budget, not $330,000.

What does all this mean to us the taxpayer and to the budget process? With declining revenues and increasing costs of our current economic climate, it is more important than ever to account for every dollar. As taxpayers, we trust that the financial information is accurate – isn’t this information checked and re-checked. After all, the township manager’s budget information would have multiple in-house reviews before it goes public, correct. Finance Director, Township Manager, Supervisor Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors . . . all of these people have access to this information before the public sees it. Where is the accountability? Are these kinds of mathematical ‘mistakes’ OK? These errors are in the budget summary . . . are there additional errors in the budget line listings?

Reading the township revenue and expenditure summaries, I find it confusing and difficult to understand. There is not an adequate breakdown of the department expenditures and the account detail worksheets do not provide sufficient explanation (particularly of increased costs). Can the public please have a complete township budget with all details? If you look at the school district, they are far more transparent, providing complete information, including every check written from TESD. The last budget update from TESD was 180+ pages and provided the public with complete information. The township budget is a fraction of the school district budget; should we not expect similar public information?

We were all caught up in the EIT campaign hype over the last month leading up to Election Day. We were inundated with Republican campaign mailers, robo-calls and yellow signs all claiming ‘No EIT’ and then the defense from the Democratic camp. As was the case when I ran for the Board of Supervisors in 2009, the Republican campaign materials implied that if voters elected a Democrat candidate, residents would be in line for an increase in taxes.

Election Day 2011 was only a week ago and we know from the results that Tredyffrin Township will continue as an all-Republican Board of Supervisors and the School Board will be Republican-majority in its membership. Democrats were not elected because they presumably would ‘raise taxes’. So how is it that a week after the election, the Republican Board of Supervisors present a budget that contains a 6.9% tax increase?

There were two 2012 township budget workshops, late August and October 1. The supervisors would have known that a tax increase would be required for 2012. Rather than indicate or suggest the possibility of a 2012 tax increase, the supervisors choose to wait until after Election Day. And the Republicans said it was the Democrats who would raise taxes . . . guess this is ‘politics’.

Between the tax increases from the township and the school district, what do you guess the overall increase will be for the Tredyffrin taxpayer . . . 10%, 12%?

 

No EIT for Tredyffrin Easttown School District in 2012!

November 15, 2011
48 Comments

Based on Ray Clarke’s notes below from the Finance Committee and the School Board meeting on the Earned Income Tax, sounds like it was quite a night! First off, the big news to report — there will be no EIT voter referendum question on the April primary election ballot. The same two people, Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley, favored taking the EIT to the voters as they voted similarly in October 2010. Please read Ray’s comments and I would like to hear from others who attended the meeting last night.

A couple of fascinating school district meetings last night. Bottom Line: a motion to advise the townships of a possible intent to put an EIT on next year’s ballot was defeated 7:2 (Mahoney, Crowley).

My own take, but watch the action for yourselves….

The usual arguments were rehearsed by both Board members and audience, but the ones that I felt carried the day were that “now is not the time” and “we’re going to try really really hard to get Harrisburg to find another of your pockets to take the employee pensions from”. Dr Brake had a well-reasoned position that also made the point that the current political climate would not allow a thoughtful debate and the Board could avoid “roiling the community” further by not putting it to referendum now.

But that was not what kept this audience member awake. Just about every board member (campaigning or not) berated the political machine for the campaign tactics.

Dr Brake contrasted legitimate “contrast pieces” with “offensive” “making stuff up”. Then Republican operative Tom Colman launched a defense of the election tactics, and acknowledged that he had orchestrated a personal campaign against the Act 1 tax in 2007. That brought up Jenny Wessels to state that she had been miss-represented in the campaign and to commend the Board for their non-partisan approach. Then followed Debbie Bookstaber, in a long soliloquy berating her colleagues for their political statements. Must see TV!

A few interesting audience comments:

Ed Sweeney: strongly against an EIT and wants the tax policy to attract the “right people” (high income earners?)

Melody Price: a thoughtful appeal for a balanced approach that considers all potential solutions.

Unknown audience member: “three words – Taxed Enough Already” (that was helpful!)

Barbara Morosse: There is more expense for the district to cut, including through teacher salary structure changes.

Notable board member comments:

Rich Brake: wants to completely recalibrate the teachers’ contract, do away with the matrix.

Kevin Mahoney: a) lest anyone thinks that companies are not interested in property taxes, consider the multi-million dollar GSK assessment appeals, b) maybe school districts should be freed up from rules that limit investment options to be able to earn returns like UPenn endowment’s 15%

Betsy Fadem: Don’t think we can use the Fund Balance to balance the budget because the School Board has committed it….

Which brings me to the evening’s opening act, the Finance Committee. Four things to remark:

[1] The minutes that Pattye had puzzled over were corrected: the administration proposals for the $1.3 million funding restoration were not authorized by the last Finance Committee but referred back to the Education Committee.

[2] A discussion of the Fund Balance commitments, which include $7.6 million of “vested employee services”, along of course with $15.4 million of “future retirement plan stabilization”. The accounting is much different to the GAAP I’m used to, but here’s my takeaway:

  • These amounts are based on arbitrary board policies
  • The PSERS commitment is based on the next five years, the employee services on almost but not quite the full lifetime liability
  • They are only commitments to the extent that it takes a Board vote to change them
  • Few if any other school districts have a commitment for vested employee services, and pay as they go.

So, “vested employee services” appears to be another way to sit on taxpayer money without fully revealing what the actual liability is, what the additions and payouts are from year-to-year, and where the funding for the liability comes from. And, in general, the PSERS liability is going straight up for the next 5 years, holds flat for the next 10, and then starts to decline. So would the policy mean that the district sequesters say $25 million of taxpayer money until that decline starts in 2025 or so?

I think that Mahoney committed the next Finance Committee to review the policy. At the very least it would be good to know exactly how all this works, and why it is that TE policies need to be different from other school districts.

[3] Groundwork laid for the ongoing property tax-to-the-max strategy: next year’s Act 1 Index estimated at 1.7%, Exceptions for PSERS and special education 1.7%, total property tax increase 3.4%, $2.9 million.

[4] The fourth thing was …… err ……. ooops …… oh yes:

The Finance Committee approved a contract with a marketing agency for selling promotional space on district property. The net annual revenue to the district is projected to be $160,000. The agency was the only one that responded to the district RFP. The contract states that the District has to approve all content, sponsors, advertisements; in the meeting it was stated that the Board approval is required.

If I think of any else, I’ll add it as a comment.

Tredyffrin’s 2012 Preliminary Budget + Business Development Advisory Council Announced

November 15, 2011
Comments

I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting last night but based on the notes from Ray Clarke, it sounds like the Finance Committee meeting and the EIT discussion of the school board was more action-packed. Because of the amount of information, I will present some updates from the BOS meeting and then separately provide Ray’s notes from the TESD.

The township economic advisory group that I advocated for on Community Matters in February 2011 has finally come together. Although this new group was approved by the supervisors in April, it has been a long process to finally have the group announced. Supervisors Donahue, Heaberg and Kichline have held meetings with local companies, real estate and leasing representatives, etc. during the last several months to create a model for this advisory group. Once they established the criteria, community members were asked to submit letters of interest and resumes and we were told last night that they received 20 applications for the committee.

The newly formed economic advisory group is to be called Tredyffrin Business Development Advisory Council. The announcement read, “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.”

The members of the TBDAC are Dan Fishbein, Eric Kleppe, Stanford Nishikawa, Jim Sanborn, John Susanin and Bill Thomsen. Although their individual backgrounds were not offered, a quick online search reveals this is an impressive group of people!

  • Dan Fishbein, VP of BNY Mellon/Urdang Capital (real estate industry)
  • Eric Kleppe, Director of Client Services at Turner Investments
  • Stanford Nishikawa, former junk-bond analyst who now runs his family’s investments
  • Jim Sanborn, VP and General Manager of Interstate & Ocean Transport Company
  • John Susanin, Partner in SSH Real Estate, brokerage and investment company
  • Bill Thomsen, Senior VP at Urban Engineers, Inc.

In addition to the three supervisors (Kickline, Donahue and Heaberg), the six citizens listed above, there will be four liaison members — Tory Snyder, Planning Commission; Beth Brake and Donna Shipman, Community Affairs and Small Business; and Dave Rowland, Paoli Business community.

As explained last night, the group will meet periodically and present a report in the next 4-6 months. It is intended that following their report, a long term business advisory group will be created.

A major topic of the evening was the preliminary 2012 township budget. Township manager Mimi Gleason presented her yearly budget summary. She forecasts that the general fund balance for 2011 will decrease by over $100,000 versus budget. General fund expenditures are forecasted at $240,000 over budget (due primarily to storms). Overall, Gleason forecasts 2011 to end $377,000 under budget. No surprises that the declining revenues are expected in 2012 and beyond. The general fund revenue is expected to decrease another $130,000 in 2012, for a total decrease of $330,000 versus the 2011 budget. General fund expenditures is expected to remain flat from 2011 forecast and 1.5% greater than the 2011 budget.

With the preliminary draft, the 2012 budget has a $500,000 hole versus the 2011 budget. So how is the budget balanced and what does this mean for the taxpayer? Unless there are reductions in costs or services, this means a 6.9% millage real estate rate increase.

What are the contributing factors . . . the downturn in the economy, decrease in real estate and transfer tax, and $70K decrease in recycling grant from the state all contribute to lower revenue. A number of township residents have had their homes reassessed, which is indicated by the lower real estate taxes paid to the township. But I didn’t think about commercial reassessments and Tredyffrin had two significant companies with property reassessments – Vanguard and De Lage Landen (Dutch company with its US headquarters on Old Eagle School Rd, Wayne). The combined real estate reassessments of these two corporate giants accounted for a major drop in revenue.

Remember this was just the first preliminary budget presentation; it is possible that the mileage real estate rate increase may drop. As explained last night, if no changes are made in the budget, the 6.9% increase is approximately $34/year increase. Don’t we wish that was the increase we were facing for the school district?

Here’s a link to the township’s 2012 preliminary budget.

Decision Time – Will T/E School Board Directors Vote in Favor of an EIT Voter Referendum Question?

November 13, 2011
36 Comments

Monday night is a case where I would like to be in two places at once . . .

Tredyffrin’s township finances and the proposed 2012 budget is on the Board of Supervisors agenda at 7:30 PM while the T/E school directors will hold a Finance Committee meeting at 6:30 PM followed by a special school board meeting at 7:30 PM to discuss the EIT. (Both school district meetings will be held in Conestoga HS cafeteria). I will attend the Board of Supervisors meeting and I am counting on my friend Ray Clarke to attend the school district meetings.

In reviewing the agenda for the T/E Finance Committee meeting and the draft minutes from their October 17 meeting, I read the following:

Education Committee Recommendation:

At the prior Finance Committee meeting the Committee was informed that the State reinstated $1.3 million in funding that was not included in the District’s 2011-12 budget. In light of this information, the Committee authorized the Superintendent to restore education program cuts made in the 2011-12 budget. Dr. Richard Gusick presented the proposed reinstatements of budget cuts to the education program and explained that they were already reviewed by the Education The Finance Committee asked that the proposal to reinstate these budget cuts be presented at a future Board meeting.

I am confused. Although I was aware that the State had reinstated $1.3 million in funding to the T/E school district, I was not aware there was a decision as to whether (1) restore the district’s education programming cuts or (2) add the money to the fund balance.

According to these minutes, the Finance Committee (or Education Committee?) authorized the money go to restoring education program cuts. Restoring which programming cuts? Latin in the Middle School? Foreign language in the elementary school? Technology purchases? Specifically, which education program cuts did the committee authorize restored? In addition, are we to assume that the option of adding the $1.3 million to the district’s fund balance is off the table for consideration? These are questions for the school board directors at Monday’s meeting.

I also noted that the Finance Committee meeting minutes indicate that the school district will wait until 2012 to release a RFP for the outsourcing (if needed) of custodial services. It is not clear at this point if custodial outsourcing will be on the budget reduction strategy list.

Immediately following the Finance Committee meeting tomorrow night, the school board will hold a special meeting at 7:30 PM to consider notification to Tredyffrin and Easttown townships of the intent to levy an EIT. November 16 is the deadline for the School Board to provide the townships with notification so the board will be taking a vote at this special meeting. The school board will vote on whether to include EIT as a voter referendum question on the primary election ballot on April 24, 2012. For school districts to levy an EIT requires voter approval. The maximum that TESD could levy is 1%. If approved by voters, all residents, including renters, in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships would be taxed at 1% on earned income. If an EIT were to be approved, the townships have the legal option to request one-half of the 1% collected by the school district.

Leading up to Election Day, we watched as EIT become the ‘buzz’ word of the local campaign season. Early on, the local Republican Party took a stand against an earned income tax and furthered the issue by labeling the Democrat candidates as EIT supporters. Feeling the pressure, all the Democratic school board candidates responded that ‘they’ were personally opposed to an earned income tax.

The politicizing of the EIT prior to the public presentation of TESD’s tax study group troubled me. The EIT became a political football between the local political parties and in my opinion, damaged the community’s ability to completely understand the EIT as presented by the tax study group. Not to mention the confusion that occurred at the polls on Election Day! Three different precinct judge of elections have reported to me that there were some confused voters — asking where the EIT question was on the ballot. Based on the campaign mailers and political signs, many in the community came to the polls on Election Day expecting to vote on the EIT issue.

Now that we are on the other side of the election, how can newly re-elected school board members Karen Cruikshank (D) and Jim Bruce (R) now vote in favor of taking the EIT issue to the voters. I do not know whether re-elected Easttown school board member Pete Motel (R) made a public statement one way or the other re the EIT. Based on the pre-election political hype of the EIT, the vote count of the school board members will be interesting. Will we see the school board members following the lead of their political parties?

If the school board members vote in favor of an EIT voter referendum question on the April primary ballot, do many of us really think that the residents would vote in favor of this new tax. During the school board budget cut strategy meetings, there were residents asking for tax increases vs. further educational programming cuts.

Faced with the possibility of further programming cuts in the next school district budget, would there be sufficient support from voters for an EIT?

Vines are Strangling our Trees & Need Help . . . A great job for politicians!

November 10, 2011
1 Comment

Now that the election is over and the committee people, the candidates, elected officials and volunteers have had a few days to recover, I can’t think of a better way to refocus on the community than to volunteer this Saturday, November 12, 9 AM – 12 Noon to help the Open Land Conservancy.

The Conservancy is once again holding a series of winter “Vine Days” to continue the successful campaign against invasive vegetation.  This would be a great bonding experience for the community to see our supervisors, school board members, former candidates and volunteers to all come out for this worthy cause!

An excellent opportunity for volunteers to make a visible and lasting impact on the Preserves.  Come check out the 600 trees that the Open Land Conservancy volunteers just planted! Volunteers get out in the fresh air, take a mid-morning hot chocolate break and enjoy the companionship of like-minded neighbors. All that’s needed are protective clothing, gloves and, if you have them, tools such as loppers, pruners and hand saws to supplement OLC’s supply. If you have Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts in the family bring them along — there’s plenty to do for everyone!

The volunteers continue to wage their successful campaign against the invasive vines that are harming the tree development in the Nature Preserves. This is a great opportunity to get some fresh air, work with some of your neighbors and make a lasting impact on the Nature Preserves.

This Saturday’s ‘Vine Day’ will focus on the George Lorimer Preserve, located on North Valley Road in the Great Valley part of the township. The Lorimer Preserve encompasses 88 acres of meadows, woods, ponds, stream, and extensive trail system are managed to provide a variety of habitats for wildlife in a beautiful rural setting. Honeysuckle, choking a tree.

Directions to the Lorimer Preserve from Paoli, take North Valley Road, cross Swedesford Road and keep going on North Valley Road about ½ mile to the parking lot on the right. Volunteers are asked to meet in the parking lot at 9 AM.

According to the conservancy, the Lorimer Preserve receives the highest number of visitors and is the most easily accessed.  However it is also the most affected by invasives and needs your help! Any questions, contact Open Land Conservancy Board member Ray Clarke, 610-578-0358.  Ray provides the following update on the Lorimer Preserve:

We are just finishing up the planting of 600+ native trees and shrubs in an area of Lorimer that a few years ago was nothing but vines and invasive bushes. Previous Vine Days allowed us to clear the way into the mess to then take out the bushes, and now we’ve had fabulous help from many sources to plant the trees. Particularly:

  • Volunteer tree planting groups from local corporations – Siemens Medical and Vanguard.
  • Trees and deer protection provided by a grant from the TreeVitalize program, funded by proceeds from the Philadelphia Flower show run by the Philadelphia Horticultural Society
  • Coordination and expertise from Green Valleys Association
  • A major donation by a private individual
  • Lots of effort by OLC volunteers

Like the “public-private partnership” that our Board of Supervisors candidates were so keen on! (Although of course, OLC is not a municipality).

The Vine Day on Saturday will spread out from this site, free up more trees and growing space for all the eventual offspring of the oaks, maples, hackberrys, sycamores, etc. that we just planted.

If anyone can’t make this Saturday, but wants to help, there will be Vine Days in other preserves on the second Saturday of every month, through April. Locations to be posted on the web site: www.openlandconservancy.org

 

T/E School Board Candidates Asked What’s Most Important Issue – Responses from Tredyffrin Democratic candidates & Easttown candidates, no Tredyffrin Republican candidate responses

November 5, 2011
51 Comments

We know that local elections are important and that the choices that you make on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8 will help determine the future of our community. As a way to better understand the school board candidates and what they value as the most important issues facing the district, I sent a three-part question to all Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board candidates. Previously, I had received and posted the responses from Easttown school board candidates – Republican Pete Motel and Democrat Craig Lewis.

Following the League of Women Voters debate on October 25, I received responses to the question from Tredyffrin Democratic school board candidates. However, the Tredyffrin Republican school board candidates declined to participate.

Below is the question and the responses from Tredyffrin’s Democratic school board candidates Karen Cruickshank, Jerry Henige, Scott Dorsey and Jenny Wessels. Following their responses, I have reposted the responses from Easttown’s school board candidates Pete Motel (R) and Craig Lewis (D)

It’s a shame that the Republican school board candidates in Tredyffrin Twp declined to respond. One of two reasons — either the Republican school board candidates in Tredyffrin didn’t see any value in my question (and their answers) or they didn’t see value in Community Matters. But then two of the Republican school board candidates (Tara LaFiura, Region 1 and Liz Mercogliano, Region 2) decided against participating in the League of Women Voters debate so perhaps I should not take their decision as personal.

Dear School Board Candidates:

Local elections are important. In an attempt to inform voters for Election Day, as a candidate for the TE School Board, I hope you will participate in the following Q&A on Community Matters.

In 200 words or less, please respond to the following question. Incorporate all three parts of the question into your response and please be specific. School board candidate responses will list on Community Matters in the order that they are received.

(1) In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the Tredyffrin Easttown School District?
(2) If you were elected, what would you do to help solve or improve this issue?
(3) The Tredyffrin Easttown School District needs problem-solvers; what in your background or job experience qualifies you to help solve this important issue?

————————————————————————————

Karen Cruickshank
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Region 1

The most important issue facing the T/E School District is our fiscal outlook.

The School District faces a 5.5 million dollar budget gap for 2012 and increases to 17 million in 2015.

State controlled pension obligations will increase from 4.7 million in 2011 to 13.3 million in 2015. In 2001 state legislators gave themselves, state employees, and public school employees a big increase in pension pay outs. These increases were never OKd by local school districts or the public.

The second budget factor is a loss of 6.5 million in revenues since 2006 from commercial and residential real estate reassessments.

In response to fiscal issues the School District has cut 10 million dollars out of its budget. Our teacher’s union gave up half of their raises for this year and our non-teaching union gave up all of their raises.

If re-elected I will work with legislators, unions, administrators, and citizens to find solutions to fiscal issues. I will look for ways the District can become more efficient without hurting the quality of our schools.

A trained higher education professional, I understand the issues facing education. I am trained in conflict negotiation and am a proven consensus builder.

——————————————————————————–

Jerry Henige
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 1

We have great schools that contribute to the wonderful quality of our neighborhoods. However, our great schools are facing serious financial challenges. For example, we are losing almost $3M a year due to property reassessments and this amount will continue to grow. And, based on bad decisions in Harrisburg, the amount the school district is being asked to pay into the pension funds will grow from $3M last year to $13.4M over the next 4 years.

At the same time Kevin Mahoney, the financial expert on the school board, is retiring leaving a critical skills gap. The financial challenges are too great to leave this gap unfilled. I believe that with my 30+ years of management and financial experience, I am the candidate that is best suited to fill this gap.

We need a school board that can work as a team to focus on potential solutions. We need to partner with parents and taxpayers, teachers and other school districts, our townships and employers to put pressure on Harrisburg to address the pension problem.

We need a school board that is prepared to work diligently to find common ground with all these constituencies. We need to be willing to try alternative approaches to education that may be more effective than what we are doing today. And we need to consider the plight of the retiree on fixed income, the family with a member who has lost a job.

I believe that I have the financial skills, temperament and energy to manage the serious financial challenges facing the school board.

——————————————————————————

Scott Dorsey
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 2

Today our district is facing a financial storm that threatens the excellence that we have come to expect from our schools. $6.5 million in lost property tax revenues because of reassessments, and other revenue shortfalls will devastate programs that are vital to many average students. Co-curricular and extra-curricular programs are also in danger. I have proven track record as a non- profit Administrator who is fiscally responsible, and I am personally opposed to the Earned Income Tax.

My background as an educator and community leader has inspired my passion for investing in children’s success. In response to TESD’s budget challenges, I propose to:

  • Collaborate with the public and private sector for solutions that combine best educational and business practices that will benefit every child
  • Fight to hold the line in the upcoming teachers’ contract
  • Find creative solutions to keep sports and other after-school activities from being cut
  • Work with the Unions to lobby the state legislature to fix the pension system
  • Work with the Township to build grant-funded sidewalks that could reduce transportation costs

I have deep experience as an administrator who has helped lead multi-million dollar non- profit organizations from the red to sound fiscal footing. I am a skilled consensus builder. I am the only school board candidate who has not sought union endorsement because I believe full transparency is required in the upcoming contract negotiations. I will lead with integrity, fiscal responsibility, and a dedication to investing in our children’s success.

—————————————————————————–

Jennifer Lightman Wessels
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Tredyffrin Region 2

The most important issue facing our school board is managing our limited financial resources while minimizing the impact on our educational program. I will be a voice on the board committed to protecting our outstanding educational program.

To lessen the financial strain on our district, I will lobby Harrisburg for legislative reform. I will use my training as a labor attorney to achieve a successful result during contract negotiations with the teachers’ union in 2012. I will be open to innovative ideas, such as pursuing new income streams from advertising and private funding. I will not, however, support the implementation of new taxes such as the Earned Income Tax (EIT) and I would oppose any move to enact an EIT in Tredyffrin Township.

As a parent of two young children in our school district and having served as the President of the PTO at New Eagle Elementary School for two years, I understand and care deeply about the issues facing our school district. As a taxpayer, I understand the importance of balancing these concerns with fiscal restraint and responsibility.

Among all the school board candidates, I am unique in that I will bring both a parent’s perspective and a lawyer’s skill to this job. I look forward to the opportunity to serve.

——————————————————————————

Pete Motel
Republican Candidate for School Board Director, Easttown Township

The biggest challenge facing the T/E School District is maintaining the quality of education it delivers during the current economic downturn.

District revenue is down by millions of dollars primarily due to two reasons:

  1. Property tax assessment appeals resulting in decreased real estate tax collection;
  2. Decreased home sales resulting in decreased real estate transfer tax. This is coupled with steep increases in the state required contribution to the state pension system – now millions above the contribution required last year.

Great efforts have been made by the Board to balance the District’s budgets without significantly effecting educational opportunities. The Board has implemented cost containment through administrative salary freezes, implementation of self-insured health insurance and more efficient scheduling of staff time.

With the economic recovery projected to take another several years, T/E Boards need to continue to cut expenses without reducing core educational programs. Success will require detailed knowledge of District operations and proven leadership skills.

My experience on the T/E Board as Committee Chairs and past Board president, coupled with my professional experience as a small business owner, demonstrate that I have the proven skills to help guide the District through the next few years of difficult budgets.

——————————————————————————

Craig Lewis
Democratic Candidate for School Director, Easttown Township

TE’s biggest issue is irresponsible budgeting.

My opponent, republican Dr. Motel, has mandated 5 study halls per week in Conestoga High (12% instruction reduction) AND a 20% increase in students per teacher. TE was the 4th best high school in Pennsylvania. Losing this rank will result in a 10% home price decline, reduced college acceptance, scholarships and earning potential.

  • My opponent diverted education money to purchase, tear-down and build non-educational facilities wasting millions of dollars.

TE’s projection shows out-of-control budget shortfalls. Starting with the current year they are:

-$777,000
-$3,909,000
-$7,925,241
-$11,862,000
-$15,450,000

My fiscally conservative priorities to prevent this catastrophe are:
Stop wasteful spending

  • Halt all construction and real-estate acquisitions.
  • The teacher pay was cut and workload increased 20%. Aggressive cost reduction has to look at all other areas.
  • Halt no-bid contracting

Preserve our premier school ranking

  • Repeal the 5 study-hall mandate.
  • Respect our staff; balance their workloads.
  • Initiate summer enrichment programs for profit.

Retirees deserve school tax relief – My opponent never did this, I will.

I have twenty years of experience in setting goals, developing strategies, creating and managing budgets, both departmental and enterprise wide. This required creative approaches, engaging individuals from different departments to drive successful outcomes.

Is EIT the answer for T/E School District — Tax Study Group Presents their Pros & Cons

November 4, 2011
13 Comments

Election Day is Tuesday and based on campaign mailers, signs and general rhetoric that we were voting on the Earned Income Tax. The EIT is not an issue for us on Election Day, at least not this election.

Much of this campaign discussion on the EIT stems from T/E School Board decision to form a Tax Study Group as part of their budget development process. The goal of the committee of eight volunteers, including Michael Abele, Michael Benning, Rita Borzillo, Marie Falcone, William Mullin, Terri Smith, Andrew Snyder and Edward Stevens, was to study the effect that an EIT would have on the residents and the school district and provide the pros and cons.

The Tax Study Group held 5 public workshop meetings and presented their findings yesterday at two public meetings. Based on the Tax Study Group’s findings, the school board will make a decision whether to include the EIT question on the April 2012 ballot. If the EIT question is placed on the primary election ballot in April, community members will hopefully be able to make an informed decision.

Although I was not able to attend the EIT meeting due to a prior commitment, it is my understanding that both were well attended. I am on record as saying that I believe the process for a fair and open discussion of the Earned Income Tax has been tainted by the last few weeks of campaign politics from school board candidates. Serious economic issues are going to continue to affect our school district and cause many challenges to the school board facing the 2012-13 budget and teacher negotiations.

If you were unable to attend either of yesterday’s public meetings by the Tax Study Group, the EIT presentation will be aired on TETV, Comcast Channel 14 and Verizon Channel 20 at 9 PM daily from November 4 through November 14.

Ray Clarke attended yesterday’s Tax Study Group and offers his candid remarks from the presentation:

The Tax Study Group matinee played to a packed house – probably a hundred or more residents in attendance. I whole-heartedly encourage anyone interested in the fiscal and educational future of T/E to attend the evening performance. Of the 30 slides, two thirds are devoted to background – really important to place the discussion in its proper context. The pros and cons of the EIT were fairly presented, although not weighted nor compared directly to alternatives (it was not the TSG mandate to do that). The audience seemed engaged throughout, and the questions at the end added much to the discussion.

The elephant in the room: what will be the attitude of the Townships? Will they take 50% of any money the voters may want to apply to their children’s education? Easttown and Tredyffrin may be very different, and I think we all need to have a very long memory about campaign promises made by Tredyffrin Supervisors. (The $30 million TESD fund balance did not go unremarked as a short-term support).

A lot of hard work and thought went into the research and analysis, and in developing a communication that is accessible to everyone. Shows how important the process was and what a travesty it is to try to short-change it. Hopefully many voters will be able to see the evening performance or the video and draw their own conclusions.

Community Matters Clarification on BOS and School Board Candidate Responses

November 2, 2011
16 Comments

It has come to be attention that some readers may be confused about the last couple of Community Matters posts and are questioning why Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates did not respond to my questions and that the Democratic candidates did. Hope this post will offer clarification.

In early October, I sent an email to all the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. In addition, I sent the Republican and Democrat school board candidates in Easttown the same email. The email asked the candidates to (1) idenify what they thought was the most important issue facing either the school district or the township, (2) the candidate was asked what they would do to help or solve the issue if elected and (3) what in their background or experience qualifies you to help solve the issue. I was specific and asked that the 3-part question be 200 words or less and gave them a deadline that was prior to the League of Women Voters debates.

The Easttown school board candidates Pete Motel (R) and Craig Lewis (D) responded with their answers prior to the deadline and those responses were posted on Community Matters on October 19. In that October 19 post, I also explained that the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates had declined to participate. Here is an excerpt from that post:

. . . Believing that it is important for voters to make an informed decision on which candidate they elect to serve us, I saw no downside to the candidates participation in May nor did I at this time.

Much to my surprise, the individual Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates declined my offer, suggesting that voters could visit their websites for information and that, “We are more than happy to answer questions from individual voters across Tredyffrin – and are doing so while going door-to-door, attending community events, and more.”

The chair of the Tredyffrin Democratic Party Dariel Jamieson responded on behalf of the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates, declining to participate until after the League of Women Voters debates. Here is an excerpt from that email:

“Our BOS and School Board candidates prefer not to submit answers to the questions you posed to them until after the LWV [League of Women Voter] debates. The questions were all ones that were asked in the debates two years ago – as they should have been, they are key questions – but to have our answers published first is not fair to the LWV and makes the job of our candidates harder to distinguish themselves in the debates.

Following the League of Women Voters debates, I received responses to my questions from the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. Although the responses were past my original deadline, I thought there was value for the voters in posting them. But so everyone knows, I actually sent a courtesy email to the Republican candidates last week to explain that the I had received the Democratic responses and offered the Republican candidates a second opportunity to answer the questions. My email to the Republican candidates stated that that no response was required if they were not going to participate; and for the record, there was no response to my email.

So there is absolutely no question in anyone’s mind — if the Republican supervisor and school board candidates would like to answer the 3-part question — I am now making a third offer to them. Candidates — answer the 3-part questions in 200 words or less and email them to me at: tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com I will be happy to post your responses! I hope this clarifies the timeline and that I gave all candidates exactly the same opportunity. I am sorry if there was any confusion!

Supervisor Candidates asked the most important issue facing Tredyffrin Township – Snyder, Wysocki & Duffy Respond

October 31, 2011
20 Comments

We know that local elections and the choices that voters will make on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8 are important. I sent a three-part question to Tredyffrin’s 3 Democratic supervisor candidates and the 4 Republican supervisor candidates.

Following the League of Women Voters debate on October 24, I received responses to the question from the Democratic candidates; however, the Republican candidates declined to participate. Below is the question and the responses from Democratic candidates Tory Snyder, Murph Wysocki and Molly Duffy. A similar question was posed to the Democratic and Republican school board candidates and those responses will be posted tomorrow.

Dear Supervisor Candidates:

Local elections are important. As a candidate for Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors in the upcoming election, I hope that you will participate in the following Q&A on Community Matters.

In 200 words or less, please respond to the following questions. Incorporate all three parts of the question into your response and please be specific in your answers. Supervisor candidate responses will be posted on Community Matters in the order that they are received.

(1) In your opinion, what is the most important issue facing Tredyffrin Township?
(2) If you were elected, what would you do to help solve or improve this issue?
(3) Tredyffrin Township needs problem-solvers; what in your background or job experience qualifies you to help solve this important issue?

———————————————————————————————
VICTORIA ‘TORY’ SNYDER
Democratic District 1 Supervisor Candidate

The largest issue facing Tredyffrin is how to provide public services that our citizens expect given falling revenues. The basis of solving this problem has to lie in economic revitalization that strengthens our tax base. Only by ensuring highest and best use of our properties, can we maximize property values and stabilize our budget. Compared to other communities in our area, Tredyffrin is financially an easy place for businesses to locate — we have neither an earned income tax nor a business privilege tax.

If I were elected, I would make it even easier for businesses to locate or expand here. Specifically, I would recommend updating our zoning code to remove, reviewing our fee structure and making sure our Township is properly staffed to provide prompt project reviews and permitting.

I have a Master of City Planning degree from Penn and have planned for County, local and private clients. I am also a ten year Tredyffrin Planning Commissioner. As a Planning Commissioner and active Township volunteer, I have seen and understand firsthand the barriers to redevelopment in Tredyffrin. I have the depth of education and experience to draw from in knowing how to remove them.

—————————————————————————————-
F. MICHAEL “MURPH” WYSOCKI
Democratic At-Large Supervisor Candidate

The most important issue facing Tredyffrin Township today is money, how to best manage revenues and expenditures for the benefit of Tredyffrin’s taxpayers.

As supervisor, I will explore public/private partnerships, grants, pooled purchasing, and other sources to tackle our funding challenges. I will exercise sound fiscal management to ensure that Tredyffrin taxpayers receive best value township services for their tax dollars.

I will vigorously pursue economic revitalization. Economic revitalization means a broader tax base, additional revenues, and tax stability for all Tredyffrin residents. If elected, I will work tenaciously, with vision and leadership that we have not seen from Tredyffrin supervisors, to bring economic vitality to Paoli by moving forward on the stalled Paoli Transportation Center/Town Center project. I will seek a new beginning for the Chesterbrook Village shopping center.

As a commercial real estate attorney with thirty-nine years of experience in supervising, structuring, negotiating, and closing large, complex financial transactions, I know how to get people to “yes.” I understand project budgets and the coordination of complex financial arrangements. If elected, I will work with Tredyffrin residents and my fellow supervisors to ensure Tredyffrin’s financial strength and economic vitality.

——————————————————————————————
MOLLY DUFFY
Democratic At-Large Supervisor Candidate

The biggest issue facing Tredyffrin is keeping our taxes low by growing the tax base, and managing our tax dollars in a responsible way. To create more revenue, we need more taxpayers. To attract more taxpayers we need to be constantly working to make Tredyffrin the kind of place businesses and families want to locate. There are also ways in which our expenses could be better managed that are not being pursued by our current board.

If I were elected, I would work tirelessly on economic development and revitalization. I would forcefully support the Paoli Transit Center and town revitalization as a catalyst to more private development in the area. I would pursue more federal, state or private grant money to continue to provide more of the kinds of amenities that make Tredyffrin attractive to families and companies who want a great place for their employees to live. I would pursue joint efforts with other municipalities to create development corridors, and consider purchasing pools to reduce costs.

I am an attorney with a focus on environmental, land use and transportation issues. My work as the past chair of the Environmental Advisory Council and current vice-chair of the Sidewalks, Trails and Paths committee, advisor to the Paoli Professional and Business Association in its work to develop a business improvement district and member of the Paoli Rail Task Force has shown that I am a leader and catalyst who can complete projects that benefit all Tredyffrin residents.

—————————————————————————————–

State Returns $1.3 Million to TESD — Restore Educational Program Cuts or Add to Fund Balance?

October 31, 2011
18 Comments

In reviewing the summaries of the T/E school board committees, I was interested to learn from the Finance Committee report (below) that almost $1 million is coming back to the fund balance due to lower than expected medical claims. That’s good news!

Also it was confirmed at the Finance Committee meeting, that the state would be returning $1.3 million in funding back to the school district. Now there’s a question for school board candidates — what would you do with the $1.3 million? Would you restore some of the educational programming cuts in the district? If so, which ones? Foreign language in the elementary schools? Maybe Latin in the middle school? Or, would you suggest that the $1.3 million go into the fund balance?

Finance Committee, Chair: Kevin Mahoney
Prepared by: Administrative Liaison

The Finance Committee met on October 17, 2011. The Committee reviewed a draft copy of the District’s 2010-2011 ending fund balances provided by the local auditors. The administration explained how the fund balances are required to be shown as committed, assigned or unassigned on the audited financial statements according to new GASB regulations. The Committee reviewed the fund balance commitments and agreed with the amount shown in the medical stabilization commitment and the fund balance from the athletic fund should be committed. The administration explained that due to lower than expected medical claims spending from the self funded health benefits plan, expenditures would be about $947,000 less than projected resulting in an addition to fund balance.

Next the administration presented the results of the September Treasurer’s report. According to the report the District will be receiving $1.3 million more in State Revenue during the 2011-2012 fiscal year than was originally anticipated and budgeted. All other revenues and expenditures are within the budget amounts. The Committee discussed how the additional State revenue would be used which included possibly reinstating cuts made to the educational program to balance the 2011-2012 budget or using less budgeted fund balance to balance the fiscal year. The administration presented the proposed reinstated budget cuts that they were approved by the Education Committee. The Finance Committee asked that the proposal to reinstate these budget cuts be presented at a future Board meeting.

The Committee also reviewed the budget calendar, paying special attention to the due dates that relate to the Earned Income Tax (EIT) Study Group and discussed how EIT revenue sharing with the Township would work. Finally the Committee reviewed the budget projection model and asked the administration to make a few changes to the assumptions for future review of the model.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme