Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Political Shortcuts Around Tredyffrin . . .

June 24, 2011
2 Comments

We learned this week from the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee (TTDEMS) there would be some changes on the November ballot. At-large Democratic supervisor candidate Ernie Falcone’s name appeared on the May primary ballot. However, according to a press release from Dariel Jamieson, chair of the TTDEMS, Falcone has withdrawn from the race, stating ‘personal reasons’. Replacing Falcone as a Democratic at-large supervisor candidate is Murph Wysocki, currently serving as vice chair of the TTDEMS. Wysocki joins Molly Duffy as at-large Democratic candidates. Opposing Wysock and Duffy in November for the 2 at-large supervisor seats will be Republicans Kristen Mayock and Mike Heaberg. At last month’s special election, Heaberg won the special election by 2 votes and now occupies the vacated seat of Warren Kampf. You need a scorecard to keep track of the candidates and the races.

Due to the at-large supervisor candidate switch, I assume that the TTDEMS have to provide the required number of signatures for Wysocki by the August deadline. Falcone must file to officially remove his name from the general election and the TTDEMS will file the necessary paperwork for Wysocki. Also noted in Jamieson’s press release was the announcement that John Cameron, a Democratic committee person from W1 received 979 write-in ballots in the May primary and will run as a candidate for Township Auditor. Cameron will oppose incumbent Bryan Humbarger (R) for the position.

In addition to the two at-large supervisor races, there are two other Tredyffrin supervisor races . . . in the eastern district, incumbent Paul Olson (R) will be challenged by Tory Snyder (D). This is going to be a very interesting race in the township for several reasons. Olson has served on the Board of Supervisors fir 30 years with only a 2-year leave a few years back. Snyder is a first-time supervisor candidate but has served on the township’s Planning Commission for several years and recently chaired the sidewalk subcommittee. If the township supervisors do not resolve the St. Davids sidewalk issue by election time, that issue is apt to play an important role in the Olson-Snyder race . . . Snyder supports the Green Routes network and the township’s plan for sidewalks whereas Olson opposes the sidewalks at St. Davids.

In Tredyffrin’s western region, District 3 has a supervisor position also on the November ballot. Incumbent supervisor John DiBuonaventuro (R) currently holds the seat and has no Democratic opposition. The District 3 supervisor race is the only unopposed Tredyffrin race for the general election. However, there is 5 weeks for that scenario to change! The deadline for a third-party ‘Independent’ candidate to register for the November general election is August 1.

To understand the process and the registration requirements for an Independent candidate, I called Chester County Voter Services. First off, to register as an Independent candidate for November’s general election, you must already be a registered third-party Independent voter (And I believe that you needed to be registered by April 10 as an Independent). Assuming that you meet the initial registration criteria, an Independent candidate must file a ‘Nomination Form’ with required signatures by August 1. How many signatures are required by the Independent candidate? An Independent candidate is required to obtain signatures equal to 2% of the highest vote getter in the last election (November 2010) in the district for which the candidate will register.

According to Michael at voter services, in the 2010 general election District 3, Gerlach received the highest number of votes – 2,538. Calculating 2% of that vote total, and a prospective Independent supervisor will need to obtain 51 signatures for the Nomination Form. Required signatures can come from Republicans, Democrats or Independents as long as the person is a registered voter and is in one of the 4 precincts of District 3. Here’s an interesting aside . . . In doing the precinct calculations for me, Michael discovered an interesting fact . . . in the 2010 State House 157 race, the vote count in District 3 for Warren Kampf and Paul Drucker was exactly the same – 2,239 votes for each.

Back to District 3 discussion, how many registered Independents live in District 3? Assuming that my arithmetic is accurate, the combined total of registered Independents from the 4 precincts in District 3 of the township is 1,240. That means there are 1,240 voters who could collect the required 51 signatures to register as an Independent supervisor candidate and appear on the general election ballot. If you believe that there should be choice in November and you are a registered Independent in District 3, perhaps you will consider challenging JD for his supervisor seat. However, the clock is ticking . . . only 5 weeks for registered Independents in District 3 to make up their mind.

A few more political notes . . . This week I attended the Chester County Preservation Network dinner and reception. An annual event, it highlights the preservation work of the HARBS and Historical Commissions throughout Chester County. I had the pleasure of meeting the newly appointed County Commission Ryan Costello (R). A supporter of historic preservation, Costello was charming and quite personable . . . I could really see him continuing to climb the political ladder. I also received a press release that our former State Rep Paul Drucker (D) will be starting a new job with Kunkle & Sennett, a West Chester law firm specializing in worker’s compensation and employment law.

Is the Answer to Pennsylvania’s Budget . . . Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

June 23, 2011
1 Comment

All eyes are on Harrisburg as the clock ticks down to the June 30 state budget deadline. Some say that to reach next week’s deadline would require a final budget in place by the end of today. At this point, Gov. Corbett appears intent on meeting the June 30 deadline . . . that by itself will mark a change from the past administration. I don’t recall if Ed Rendell’s budget was late all eight years of his administration but certainly most years.

There are some hurdles for Corbett’s budget before it is finalized. Some sticking points include whether the $300 million in Tobacco Settlement Fund revenue remains in the general fund as Corbett proposed in his preliminary budget. In the past, the tobacco fund revenue was not included in the general fund but helped fund social and welfare programs. There was a claim in March by Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Jack Wagner that over the past few years, over a $1 billion has quietly diverted from the Tobacco Settlement Fund to the general fund to help balance the state’s budget. You know the saying, ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’.

If the $300 million revenue from the Tobacco Settlement Fund were to come out of the general fund, it is possible that some of the spending cuts to basic and higher education and welfare programs could be restored. If you recall, Corbett’s preliminary budget announcement back in March indicated excess tax revenue of $78 million but to date, he has refused to increase spending. The state tax revenue in March and April of this year was higher than expected so it would seem to suggest that Corbett could afford to restore some of the education and welfare spending cuts.

Will Corbett’s final budget package include a Marcellus shale impact fee? My guess . . . highly unlikely. But the real question is why is the state not charging an extraction tax or impact fee to the drilling companies? It defies logic; I absolutely do not understand why the opposition to charging the companies– especially given the current and potential future damage to the environment and roads caused by the gas drilling.

I certainly do not claim to be any political guru; but when you look around this country and see that every other state is charging some form of a drilling tax, impact fee, or whatever you want to call it; it does beg the question, why doesn’t Pennsylvania? Is the answer so that Corbett can stand on his campaign promise of no new tax increase? Is the administration’s reluctance to impose a Marcellus shale fee have anything to do with campaign financing support? I wonder how much revenue the state has already lost and will continue to lose by not imposing a Marcellus shale impact fee.

As school districts across the state are challenged to balance their own budgets and taxpayers face property tax increases – again I have to ask, why not tax the Marcellus shale drilling companies.

TESD Finance Committee Notes, Including EIT Tax Study Group Members

June 21, 2011
12 Comments
As I was attending the Board of Supervisors meeting last night, I imposed on friend Ray Clarke to attend the Finance Committee meeting. Ray graciously attended and submitted his notes from the meeting for our review. I was pleased to see that the District released the information on the custodial outsourcing bid process. It is important for the integrity and transparency of the process, that the public receive the information – and I thank the school board members for providing it.
As Ray details, the 9 members of the EIT Tax Study Group have been chosen and were announced at the Finance Committee meeting. The members of the group include Michael Abele, Michael Benning, Rita Borzillo, Marie Falcone, William Mullin, Terri Smith, Andrew Snyder, Edward Stevens and Lauren Walsh. I am sure that you join me in thanking these community members for agreeing to serve on the tax study group.
As always, thank you for your notes from the meeting Ray — we are all most appreciative!
TESD Finance Committee Notes – Ray Clarke
Some important topics discussed at the Finance committee meeting:
1. This year’s projection. Revenues and expense roughly equal, without the budgeted $1.3 million from the Fund Balance. Helped of course by the PSERS rate reduction and internal programs more than offsetting revenue reduction. Somehow the district again manages to extract more money from taxpayers than is needed, and that will be especially true next year, with the just approved budget set for all worst contingencies. (Included is a just-received $225,000 bill from Blue Cross for 2009 expenses – a hazard of self-insurance [previously T/E was with the County consortium] that speaks to the need for long run funding, see later).
2. Fund Balance commitments. Regulations require the commitment of the fund balance for specific purposes. Previous designations seem to have been much looser and Finance Chair Mahoney is requiring a thorough analysis of the policy in the new context. The previous policy was to designate 5 years of PSERS increases vs the current year for “PSERS stabilization”. Which arithmetically means that the fund balance can only be accessed for stabilization when the cost starts to diminish (out in 2025 or so). Alternatively, should the balance be used when the increase is in fact ramping up, to mitigate the increase? Alternatively, should we not in fact assume that the state will have to come up with alternative funding anyway, and so return T/E’s money to the local property taxpayer? There is not enough money for the full five-year increase, as it is now anyway. Plus there is a need for a mechanism to smooth out health care costs in self-funded situation. An important issue.
3. Custodial out-sourcing. There were four bidders, all of which invested considerable time in their bids. The lowest bidder was Aramark, with a “base bid” of $1.3 million which was at least $500,000 below the others. The Administration concluded that the total cost would have been about $1.7 million, which they compared to the projected in-house cost of $2.6 million. If I have it right, the TENIG overtime changes and salary increase waiver (all TENIG members, not just custodians) closes $450,000 of the $900,000 gap. Of course, in future years as TENIG rates increase and PSERS rates escalate, the cost comparison for the out-sourcing solution will become more compelling. Hopefully all sides will continue to work on a satisfactory long run solution.
4. EIT study group. Members announced: Michael Abele, Michael Benning, Rita Borzillo, Marie Falcone, William Mullin, Terri Smith, Andrew Snyder, Edward Stevens, Lauren Walsh. As Pattye has reported, the selection process was based entirely on the demographics. Each applicant assigned a random number (1 to 186 total applicants), then the administration started from number 1 and filled up the various categories (6 T/3 E, 4 EIT/ 5 No EIT, 1 retired, 2-3 with school-aged children, 1 business owner, I renter, plus loose “as many age brackets as possible”, and “both genders”. Apparently they had to get down to #150 to fill all the categories. The essays only used to exclude those who had written “grossly inappropriate remarks” (none of those!). The group will meet six consecutive Thursdays starting the Thursday after Labor Day, and hold two “information sessions” for the public. A consultant from the PSBA will provide “information and data”. All meetings will be open to the public and hopefully will be used to solicit ideas for analysis and issues relevant to the Board’s decision on a referendum.

What’s the meaning of ‘Good Government’? Does it Mean Something Different in Tredyffrin?

June 21, 2011
30 Comments

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the only legitimate object of good government.”

~ Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809

According to Wikipedia, “Good Government is a normative description of how government is supposed to be constituted.” Last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting left me shaking my head and wondering about ‘good government’ in Tredyffrin. Wanting to believe in our elected officials and hoping that their decisions are in the best interest of our community, there were times during the meeting that I questioned the supervisors intentions.

The Board of Supervisors decided to delay the public hearing on the sidewalk ordinance for another month. Why? Eighteen months ago, dark clouds hung over this township as the St. Davids Golf Club land development agreement with Tredyffrin was put ‘on hold’ pending the results of a special sidewalk subcommittee. Township officials came under public scrutiny . . . with the newspaper headlines questioning the intentions of the BAWG report and the motives of some supervisors. It was a particularly dark time in our local history.

The land development contract between St. Davids Golf Club and the township is 6 years old. Four times representatives from the country club appeared before the township’s Planning Commission seeking relief from constructing the required walkway – and each time the planning commissioners choose to deny their request and uphold the terms of the land development contract.

After a yearlong special sidewalk subcommittee process, their report included sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. The supervisors voted to accept the sidewalk subcommittee report and instructed the planning commissioners to draft an amendment to the sidewalk ordinance which included an ‘in lieu of’ sidewalk fund. The Planning Commission members complied with the request and presented the draft ordinance, which was scheduled for public hearing last night. The supervisors decided to cancel that public hearing on the sidewalk ordinance and move it to the July meeting. Why?

We learned last night at the Board of Supervisors meeting that rather than honoring their vote of a few months ago to leave the land development authority in the hands of the Planning Commission, a new township land development process was presented. As discussed last night, the supervisors will now review the multiple phases of a land development plan, rather than simply the end product. Although it was suggested that the supervisors would only review the ‘larger’ projects or plans that required legislative authority, aside from the additional time and cost to developers for an additional review process, I could not help but think that this was just another way to once again delay the St. Davids walkway discussion.

Why is every decision related to the sidewalk ordinance amendment predicated on the best interests of this private country club?

A June township public hearing for the sidewalk ordinance is scheduled and advertised at a cost to taxpayers and then that hearing is cancelled, and rescheduled at additional cost. Why?

The supervisors state that they need more time to review the sidewalk ordinance. Why? So as to have more time to come up with additional ways not to uphold the contract with St. Davids Golf Club. Why don’t the supervisors just state that they have no intention of enforcing the land development contract with St. Davids? Wouldn’t that be more honest?

I have said repeatedly, this issue is not about sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. This is about a signed land development contract with the township; and the reasons why a wealthy country club isn’t required to comply with the conditions of the contract. I would bet if the township land development contract was with a private individual or another developer – they would be forced to comply with the conditions of the contract. Six years – and the country club continues to get a pass . . . why?

Is this ‘Good Government’ in Tredyffrin Township?

100 Birthday Candles for Paoli Troop 1 . . . Public Invited to Celebrate with Paoli Boy Scouts on Saturday, June 18

June 17, 2011
Comments

One of the oldest Boy Scout troops in the country, Paoli Troop 1, www.paoli1.org is marking their first 100 years of service with a weekend of celebration.

On Saturday, June 18, the public is invited to join local Paoli Troop 1 Boy Scouts and alumni from the area and across the country at Paoli Troop 1 headquarters, a beautiful 20-acre wooded site at 1038 Radnor Road, Wayne.

Join the spectators in the bleachers, Saturday, 10 AM – 12 Noon for a spirited display of scout relays and competitions. Watch as the scouts test their skills from knot-tying and Morse Code signaling to tower building, camp building and fire starting. The Paoli Troop 1 scouts will compete in the Full Field Competition on the Troop’s parade field, an annual tradition dating to the earliest days of the troop.

Saturday marks the special celebration of Paoli Troop 1’s century of history . . . men ranging in age from 17 to 97 will rekindle memories of growing and serving with childhood friends in the scout patrols of Paoli Troop 1.

Congratulations Paoli Troop 1; and here’s to your second 100 years!

Toll Road Privatization – Is this the Answer to State’s Infrastructure Problems?

June 16, 2011
2 Comments

Huffington Post today contained a timely article on the privatization of highways and their tolling, Toll Road Privatization: As Ohio Considers It, Indiana Serves As Cautionary Tale.

The article discusses that state’s across the country are looking at privatizing highways as a way to finance necessary infrastructure repairs. One interesting tolling concept discussed would privatize Interstate 95 and the Capital Beltway around my hometown, Washington, DC. Partnering with private investors using an 80-year lease, the plan would develop a ‘HOT’ (high occupancy toll) lanes. Here’s way the plan would work – if you are a commuter with 3 people in a car you won’t have to pay a toll but if you are commuting with 2 people, you would pay a toll to ride in the fast lane. This plan would guarantee revenue for the length of the lease. A HOV lane typically requires 2 persons in the car but in this instance, a HOT lane rewards those commuters with 3 or more persons — no toll.

Jeremy Roebuck of MontCo Memo, a blogger writing on Montgomery County politics and communities writes an interesting post today on the Montgomery County politics of the tolling of 422. Looks like there are some Montgomery County politicians who believe to support 422 tolling could be their poison pill in November. Here’s Roebuck’s post:

MontCo Memo, www.philly.com – posted by Jeremy Roebuck

For whom 422 tolls?

Well, that didn’t take long…

A week ago Montgomery County’s commissioner candidates adopted a mostly wait-and-see attitude regarding the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s plan to toll 422 to fund much-needed, congestion-easing improvements. This week, all four have come out against the plan.

Incumbent Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. and his Republican ticket running mate Jenny Brown, a Lower Merion Commissioner, released a statement Wednesday declaring their opposition. Said Brown: “The taxpayers have already paid for route 422, and tolling in this circumstance is not appropriate.”

Brown has a history of being a fiscally conservative hawk on Lower Merion’s board of supervisors, so no surprises there. Castor, who said last week he wasn’t crazy about the idea but needed more information, joined Brown in full-throated condemnation Wednesday.

Not to be outdone, Democratic candidates State Rep. Josh Shapiro and Whitemarsh Supervisor Leslie Richards released a joint-statement of their own, also poo-pooing the prospects of tolls: “We are committed to reducing congestion on our roadways–particularly along the Rt. 422 corridor. While we are in search of workable solutions to address our infrastructure needs, we are opposed to the Rt. 422 tolling plan.” Last week, Richards said she looked forward to seeing what the DVRPC was going to propose.

It was always going to be a tough sell. To pass, the DVRPC’s plan needs approval first from the state assembly — which must approve legislation allowing locally run tolling authorities in the state. Then, county commissioners had to come together in Montgomery, Chester and Berks Counties to create such an authority here.

And while many state and local politicos agree in private that the tolling proposal is the only way 422’s congestion will be eased any time soon, it’s become political poison among the area’s cash-strapped commuters.

Don’t think for a second those political factors haven’t weighed on the minds of the DVRPC’s planners. Unveiling the plan during a county election year is a gamble as it is sure to become an issue in commissioners’ campaigns in the three counties. But putting it off another year, would drop the question right in the middle of State Assembly races. (State Rep. Warren Kampf, R., Chester, has already shown the power of taking a strong anti-toll stance. He unseated incumbent Paul Drucker in part on a platform opposed to tolling.)

Still, Joseph M. Hoeffel III — vice chair of MontCo’s commissioners’ board, head of the DVRPC, and one of the tolling plan’s chief proponents — thinks there’s still room to navigate these tricky political waters.

Then again, he’s not running for re-election.

Cowboy Tattoo Ranch no more . . . Paoli Town Center Project Coming to Paoli!

June 16, 2011
7 Comments

It’s official!

A block of empty storefronts on Lancaster Ave. in Paoli has been sold to group of Paoli investors. Included in the sale of this retail block is the now vacated infamous Cowboy Tattoo Ranch. With a design rendering titled, ‘Paoli Town Center’ by Architetra (shown below) I am certain that I join the community in welcoming the new owners and their redevelopment plans to the neighborhood!

It is my understanding that the row of buildings is slated for a makeover and facelift. Although not confirmed, I believe that the lower level will be retail space and the second floor either office space or apartments. I am not sure on the timeline for the project, but the ink is dry on the paperwork so I am looking forward to an exciting new look to this section of Lancaster Avenue in Paoli.

Located directly across Lancaster Avenue from the Paoli Train Station, here’s hoping that this latest redevelopment project is an encouraging economic sign and means good news for movement on the Paoli Transportation Center project!

What’s the Price of a Hamburger in T/E? Property Taxes to Increase by 3.77%

June 14, 2011
9 Comments

In case you have not heard, the T/E School Board voted to approve the final 2011-12 budget last night . . . and yes folks; the residents of TESD will receive a 3.77% property tax increase. The vote count on the budget was 7-2; Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were the dissenting votes. I guess I should have expected this outcome, but was surprised nonetheless. I left the school board meeting feeling that the decision was preordained and that no amount of discussion was going to change anything.

At the June 1 school board meeting, the school board voted to accept the TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown non-instructional group) union’s agreement amendment for no salary increase for 2011-12. The school board decided not to out-source the custodial service; thus saving $300K in salaries and additionally $150K in overtime costs, for a total of approximately $450K savings to TESD. Many of the custodial staff are T/E residents, so the board decision saved some local jobs.

It was my understanding that at last night’s board meeting, the public would have the details about the custodian outsourcing RFP bidding process – how many custodian companies bid the job, what was the range of their bids, etc. I was disappointed that custodian outsourcing was not on the agenda, nor was there any discussion on the topic. If I want further information, I guess it would require filing a right-to-know request. I am not suggesting that the school board’s choice was incorrect; I just think that the public has a right to know the details pertaining to their decision.

Ray Clarke also attended the meeting last night and I am pleased to offer his notes from the meeting below. You will note that Ray mentions school board member Kevin Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to the cost of ‘hamburgers’. Out of context, his comparison is difficult to understand; so I have included the video clip prepared by Bob Byrne, editor of TE Patch. To understand Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to hamburgers, you will need to click here for the video.

Ray Clark’s T/E School Board Meeting, 6/13/11 Notes

The School Board approved by a 7-2 vote a 2011/12 budget that differed only marginally from the preliminary one, a result of removing the $150,000 contribution from the food service fund, thus increasing the draw from the general fund.

Only Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were consistent in standing up for taxpayers. (On the other side, though, only Kevin Mahoney, Anne Crowley and Kevin Buraks spoke up for the budget – at their peril, though, see below. And, does Jim Bruce ever contribute anything to important issues?).

The increase results in a millage rate calculated to six significant figures (18.6474), in order (as was stated) to capture every last cent of permissible blood from the taxpayer stone. This despite the points below made by most of the board that spoke – regardless of which way they voted!

1. The amount of year’s tax increase does not change the structural budget problem in subsequent years.

2. There is a $29 million general fund balance, earning next-to-no interest, and which will be depleted by less than 7% under the proposed budget (with another 7% contingency for everything including the kitchen sink).

3. Since the preliminary budget, the district has received $1.2 million of union sacrifices. The taxpayer sees no benefit of those.

4. Since the preliminary budget, the state house and senate are working on bills that will likely restore the >$1 million capricious social security reimbursement cut in Corbett’s budget.

5. The district has consistently over the years held the line at the Act 1 Index increase, up until now.

6. The aggregate metropolitan area is is managing with less than two thirds of T/E’s increase.

Crowley sees the maximum increase for 2011/12 as key to maintaining the education program long term, while Buraks likened the TE educational product to hamburger, priced (tax rate? tax amount? spending per student?) just less than Great Valley’s and more substantially below Lower Merion’s. Since the product is arguably at least as good, we should be just fine with increasing the price. The very same argument that the union have used for years to ratchet up compensation and get us into today’s mess!

Let’s just continue this analogy: People chose to live here because they appreciate hamburgers, and they like the value of T/E’s. Increases beyond the competition’s remove that value. They also like that the other customers share their values and that eating with them at the stand enhances the value of the meal, and indeed they volunteer at the hamburger stand to make the product even better. Nothing whatsoever to do with the amount spent for the burgers themselves. Also remember that T/E’s product is inherently better value because it has made lower cost restaurant location choices than, say, LM, and has better scale in its operations than, say, Radnor, and has more non-consuming commercial interests that contribute to its cost.

Another disappointing item on the “Consent Agenda”: the approval of pricing for contracted services for 2011/12. The Board voted to approve 10 pages of supplier prices for mostly special education services but also many facilities contractors, “orthopedic specialist”, lawyers, “schooldude.com”, etc. etc. This information was in the online agenda, but not in the meeting hand out. Why?

But that’s not the point. From the information presented there was no way to tell how prices compared with this year’s or where the spend is likely to be concentrated. We do know that the architect hourly fees are down and the solicitor costs are flat, but what about the rest? There’s a budget strategy to get supplier costs down – how much did this list contribute to that strategy? There is no indication that the Board received any information on which to base their approval of the pricing. Even though there is no commitment to purchase, this just is not acceptable governance practice.

Also: a) A lot going on in Harrisburg; unpredictable, but tending to shift the balance of power towards districts/taxpayers and away from unions, and b) Facilities wants to move forward with a trial rental of Teamer Field on week-ends, and battle lines seem to be forming.

Every Vote Does Count . . . Duffy Concedes Special Election to Heaberg

June 14, 2011
2 Comments

“You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”
~ Molly Duffy

Although questions remain surrounding the malfunctioning voting machines and how 61 ballots were not originally counted, the special election ballots have been satisfactorily reconciled and as of tonight, Molly Duffy (D) has conceded the race to Mike Heaberg (R). As a result of the special election, Heaberg will complete the vacated term of Warren Kampf, until January 2012.

Chester County Voter Services has updated their website and are now indicating their results as official and certified. Steve Shapiro, Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin’s W2 precinct has compiled the results of the election precinct by precinct into spreadsheets and kindly offers them to Community Matters readers.

  • For comparison of unofficial to certified results by candidate, click here.
  • For comparison of unofficial to certified results by party, click here.

Duffy and Heaberg will be on the ballot in the general election, along with Kristen Mayock (R) and Ernie Falcone (D). In November voters will choose 2 at-large supervisors between Heaberg, Duffy, Mayock and Falcone.

Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, provided the following press release on the Tredyffrin Township’s special election results.

Duffy Looks Long Term for Supervisor

Wayne, PA, June 13, 2011— Certification of the Special Election vote for Tredyffrin Supervisor should be announced this week after a complete manual count of ballots and full reconciliation by Chester County’s Voter Services. While there has still been no plausible explanation of how 61 ballots could have gone uncounted on Election Day, Democratic candidate Molly Duffy’s 40-vote lead on election night has fallen to a two vote deficit, out of over 4500 ballots cast.

Molly Duffy said this about the race and result: “I want to thank all those who supported me and voted for me, especially my family. Statistically the result of our campaign’s hard work feels like a ‘virtual tie.’ But it only takes one vote to win. We put forth a tremendous effort and showed that running a campaign based on qualifications and issues resonated with voters. Everyone should be heartened, not heart-broken, over the photo finish in the special election.

I know I’m looking forward to the November election for a full four-year term as Supervisor. I’ll keep stressing the important issues facing our township: We need to revitalize our business corridors, improve traffic management, and provide safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists. It is vital that we maintain the quality of township services expected in Tredyffrin, including police and fire protection, while holding the line on taxes.

Our campaign noted my work with municipalities—including other municipalities, in addition to Tredyffrin. I’ve worked on business improvement and transportation plans, including for Paoli. I’m running for Supervisor because I believe in finding and implementing solutions.

It takes Supervisors with a bent toward action and some far-sightedness to help realize the community’s vision. We’re fortunate to be living in a wonderful community. I want to help preserve its virtues and enrich it as a great place to live.

Thanks again to everyone who came out to vote and made May an exciting election. I hope you will remember my experience and my vision, and bring some friends along to vote for me on November 8.

You have to admit we showed even one vote can make a difference.”

Random Files: short news updates

June 12, 2011
7 Comments

Tredyffrin’s Special Election Results . . . Chester County Voter Services completed the hand count of the Duffy/Heaberg Special Election ballots from the May 17 primary a couple of weeks ago. Originally, the count indicated Heaberg ahead by 3 votes but a provisional ballot for Duffy was found; 2 votes currently separate the candidates. Due to many malfunctioning voting machines countywide, it is my understanding that voter services has been working overtime to certify the election results by the 30-day deadline on June 17. Look for the results to be certified early this week; word has it that alignment issues with Republican ballots heads the list of possible reasons for the problem. Does make you wonder about prior close elections . . . here’s hoping that whatever the problem, it is thoroughly researched (and corrected) prior to November’s general election.

Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook Shopping Center . . . Empty for a year, we had heard that the Bottom Dollar Grocery chain was going to take the vacant space but that offer fell through. The next development in March of this year, Centro Properties sold 588 shopping centers (including Chesterbrook) to private equity giant, Blackstone Group for $9.4 billion. Although the lease sign remains on Genuardi’s, there has been recent movement in the last few days. Paul Prestia, a local attorney with Ratner Prestia in Westlakes is floating an idea to the community to create a food co-op in the former Genuardi’s space. Using a model similar to Swarthmore Co-op, www.swarthmore.coop/ it would specialize in locally sourced and organic food. This is an interesting redevelopment idea for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center and I will be curious to see if it develops further.

Brian O’Neill . . . the King of Prussia developer behind the Uptown Worthington project in Malvern is back in the news. The O’Neill Properties vs. Citizens Bank trial is slated to begin in December and O’Neill has dramatically reduced his original $billion+ demands down to $297 million. Once the parties reach a settlement, construction is expected to get underway again at Worthington. O’Neill’s vision remains for Uptown Worthington – the ‘Center City of Great Valley’. His vision will require more than the current two stores, Wegnman’s and Target, on the 100+ acres.

T/E School Budget . . . The TESD school board makes the final 2011-12 budget vote on Monday night, June 13, 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School. Property tax increase is projected at 3.8%. Click here for the agenda.

EIT Tax Study Group . . . Applications are still being accepted from Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for the TESD EIT Tax Study Group – deadline for applications is Wednesday, June 15. The TESD Public Information meeting is Tuesday, June 14 and the selection process will be discussed. There are to be 9 committee members chosen and my understanding is that 100 applications have been received to date. Click here for the application. The success of the tax study group depends on a non-political selection process and committee membership.

HARB no more . . . As of the May Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Tredyffrin’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) was replaced by a Historic Commission. With an expanding mission to protect historic properties in the township, I was pleased that supervisors showed their support of preserving the township’s historic resources with a unanimous vote. I am expecting great things from our new commission, and am excited to be part of it.

Planning Commission – Where’s the Sidewalk Ordinance amendment on your agenda . . . I was very surprised to see that the sidewalk ordinance discussion is off this week’s Planning Commission agenda. The proposed ordinance amendment establishes the criteria for the requirement to construct sidewalks and establish a fee in lieu of construction procedure and is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, June 20. Having attended the last Planning Commission meeting, it appeared commissioners had not reached a consensus on the ordinance, so why is it off the agenda for their meeting?

For those that may have forgotten, the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue remains outstanding since December 2009. The land development agreement between the township and St. Davids requiring sidewalks is now 4 or 5 (?) years old and yet the clock continues to tick (and tick, and tick). Whose responsibility is to enforce the sidewalks at St. Davids? It is now eighteen months since the St. Davids sidewalk issue was ‘set aside’ by Tredyffrin’s supervisors and, to date there remains no resolution in the matter.

Is the sidewalk issue going to be the 2011 supervisor campaign issue, as the 422 issue was to the 2010 State House race? Adding a new twist to the continuing sidewalk saga, supervisor Paul Olson (R) is up for re-election from the eastern district. Having served as supervisor for 30 years, he is on record as opposing the St. Davids sidewalk; proclaiming it the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’. Olson’s opponent in the supervisor race, Tory Snyder (D) is a Planning Commissioner and served as chair of the sidewalks subcommittee. She supports the green routes network and the sidewalks component of the township’s comprehensive plan. Olson and Snyder are scheduled to square off against each other in November’s general election.

Valley View Shopping Center . . . If you haven’t driven down this section of 252 lately, you might be surprised at the level of activity. The redevelopment of the old Bargain Bookstore is well underway; it appears that they are gutting both floors of the building for a new branch of Mealey’s Furniture. In the same shopping center, the old Charlie Brown Restaurant is undergoing much change for its transformation in to a new McKenzie Brew House. Originally slated for completion in September, signs point that the microbrewery is on schedule.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme