Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

The ‘To Toll or Not to Toll’ Discussion Continues . . . A Personal Response from State Rep Warren Kampf

June 10, 2011
16 Comments

The ‘To Toll or Not to Toll’ discussion continues . . . the tolling of 422 continues to make headlines and yesterday was a busy day for legislators on either side of the issue.

In an op-ed article (6/9/11) in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Joe Hoeffel (D), vice chair of the Montgomery County Commission and chair of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, wrote, “there isn’t enough state or federal money for the job. The state has budgeted $250 million for the Route 422 corridor over the next decade, but transportation experts agree that $750 million is needed. And nobody believes the legislature or Congress will provide that kind of funding anytime soon. Without a new funding source, 422 will not be fixed for at least 30 years, according to projections by the state Department of Transportation. By that time, the highway will be gridlocked for much of the day.” Hoeffel supports tolling of 422 and believes that a modest toll could generate $800 million in a few years.

Opposing the tolling of 422, state representatives David Maloney, (R) Berks, Marcy Toepel, (R) Montgomery, Tom Quigley, (R) Montgomery and Warren Kampf (R), our 157th district representative, held a news conference in Phoenixville yesterday. Calling the 422 project, the Hoeffel Tolling Plan, these local legislators do not believe that tolling is a viable option to pay for infrastructure improvements. Click here for a short video clip of the press conference.

There continues to be much written and discussed about the tolling of 422. Depending on how you feel about the topic, you can find supporters on either side of the issue; those for tolling and those against tolling. However, regardless of your personal views on tolling, I think we can all agree that the traffic congestion on 422 is a commuter’s nightmare and that something needs to change, and. . . we need people with a vision to encourage that change.

We aware that our own state representative continues to stand behind his ‘no tolling of 422′ campaign message — but it was unclear to me whether Kampf considered that Route 422 was actually a traffic problem. Seeking clarification on his ‘422 traffic’ position, I sent him this simple email a couple of days ago:

Dear Rep. Kampf,

As my elected State Representative, do you believe that there is a traffic problem on Route 422?

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Pattye Benson

As some of you are aware, my previous communication with Kampf has not always been the most successful. Now that he is our elected state representative, I was curious to see if anything had changed and admit I was pleasantly surprised that he took the time to send a personal and lengthy response. I believe that there is value in my sharing his response and have notified him that I would be adding it to today’s post on Community Matters. His reply to my email:

Pattye:

Thank you for your email. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may have heard, I am on record as being against tolling 422. I believe that this “toll” is just another name for a tax on the already overburdened commuters of that roadway. But I recognize that 422 is a transportation problem for commuters.

The idea to address 422’s needs without tolling is not solely mine; Governor Corbett has convened a Transportation Funding Advisory Committee that is looking at over 50 prospective ways to address the funding gap for our road/bridge infrastructure (tolling is one of the options but in no way is it the only option being discussed). I believe that prioritizing, finding cost savings and advocacy for our regional roadways must be tools considered as part of the discussion too.

I have empathy for the people who drive that roadway, and I have my own personal experience on 422 to draw from. We all pay the same gas taxes and vehicle fees that others in Pennsylvania pay, but the response to fix our road has been to ask my constituents to pay up to $5 a day more for the privilege of driving that road! That just seems unfair.

Other areas have had road and bridge needs addressed. PennDOT does have a larger plan for the area’s roads. As you know, 202 is getting significant improvement. Route 309 was also rebuilt. These projects came to fruition not with tolling revenue but with the already existing sources within the Commonwealth that I mentioned above. Why is 422 unique?

There is over $240 Million currently programmed for improvement of 422 during the next eight (8) years within the PennDOT plans. This is in the plan without tolling. While it is not enough, and does not come fast enough, it will be a good start. Tolling does not appear likely to make this set of improvements happen any faster that I can tell. Further, this proposal is being billed as a public private partnership, but fundamentally it is almost entirely public money—both tolls and other transportation funding—that will pay for these improvements. Finally, there is a rail line proposal in the mix here, paid for with toll money. While I certainly recognize the attractiveness of restored rail to towns like Phoenixville, this will in all likelihood require management by SEPTA, or some such entity, and we know such rail lines usually run at a significant deficit year in and year out. That cost will ultimately pass on to the taxpayers, and I campaigned on a platform that promised the taxpayer, in tough times such as these and in good times, a seat at the table when these decisions are made. I feel I am making good on that commitment but seeking alternatives.

As a final thought, we built 422 with public money. We have maintained it with public money. We have continued to collect those monies and have an obligation to serve the people who drive that road. One could argue it would be a violation of the public trust to change the game now and introduce tolls. The 422 corridor continues to grow in large part because of the access that road provides. Indeed, it is a road regularly used for shopping and other trips not related to “commuting.” I believe my constituents feel as I do, and I welcome your input.

Thank you for your question.

Warren

The Clock is Ticking Down for T/E School Budget . . . Will Property Tax Increase be the Highest of our Neighbors

June 9, 2011
33 Comments

The clock is ticking down . . . the T/E School Board votes on the final budget for 2011-12 on Monday, June 13, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. The preliminary school budget contained a property tax increase of 3.8%. Will that tax increase remain in the final budget or is possible that the school board members may consider a lower increase?

The school board and the administration have battled their way through the 2011-12 budget since last fall, with regular school board meetings as well as finance and special budget meetings. The board and administration thoroughly reviewed many budget strategies and made difficult educational and programming decisions. The school district reached agreements for the 2011-12 school year with the teachers union (TEEA) and with the non-instructional union (TENIG). In the spirit of shared sacrifice, union members from TEEA and TENIG showed their support for the school district and agreed to a variation of a salary freeze to help the bottom line of the District’s 2011-12 budget.

According to the TEEA agreement with the T/E school district, the teachers will have their salaries frozen for the first 6 months of the 2011-12 school year based on their final paycheck of the 2010-11 school year. As part of the agreement, TESD agreed there would be no involuntary furloughing or involuntary demotion of teachers for 2011-12. The cost savings for the TEEA agreement is approximately $1 Million to the school district.

The agreement reached between TENIG and TESD is a zero percent wage increase for the 2011-12 school year. The savings to the school district with TENIG’s salary freeze is $300K. Adding the additional reduced overtime wages and the total TENIG savings to the District is approximately $450K.

The school board members applauded the efforts of TEEA and TENIG . . . the combined total help from the two unions represents nearly $1.5 million in savings to the school district.

Here’s my question . . . given the substantial level of savings, due to TEEA and TENIG’s spirit of shared sacrifice, will the school board also recognize the ongoing sacrifices of the taxpayers in this school district? Will the school board consider a reduction in the proposed 3.8% property tax increase? The preliminary 2011-12 budget could not predict the $1.5 million savings from the unions, so should the taxpayers expect the final budget to reflect those savings? I believe that the 3.8% includes taking the full Act 1 exemptions but maybe in light of the union savings, the percentage increase could be reduced.

In anticipation of TESD’s final budget vote on Monday, I thought it would be interesting to see where the currently projected 3.8% property tax increase measures up against other local school districts. I think that it is fair to use Radnor, Lower Merion and Great Valley school districts for comparison. Generally speaking, these school districts are comparable in level of education quality and I would think that the economic climate of the taxpayers is similar. Each of these school districts has approved their final budgets —

  • Radnor Township School District – 1.4% tax increase Lowest RDSD tax increase in years. RTSD credited the Radnor teachers’ sacrifice in reaching a contract agreement for the low tax increase.
  • Great Valley School District – 2.9% tax increase GVSD Superintendent Alan Lonoconus, said of the tax increase, “We tried very hard this year to make sure the impact to programs was as gentle as possible. But we also kept in mind the economic conditions not only of our district, but of the nation.”
  • Lower Merion School District – 3.3% tax increase Lowest tax increase since 1984-84 fiscal year

Although not an adjacent school district and perhaps not as highly ranked academically as Radnor, Great Valley, Lower Merion and T/E school districts, I was fascinated by West Chester School District’s final budget decision —

  • West Chester School District – NO tax increase. The 0 percent tax increase balanced WCSD budget by taking $3 million from their fund balance.

It is not surprising that the taxpayers of WCSD overwhelming supported the decision of their school board leaders not to increase taxes. In reviewing the demands of their school budget over the last months, there was much discussion between school board members and residents in regard to the severe economic conditions facing the residents, rising gas prices, high unemployment, etc. Many taxpayers in the WCSD complained that they are already financially pushed to the limit — the 0 percent tax increase decision came as welcomed news.

As it now stands, unless the T/E school board members reconsider, a property tax increase of 3.8% is on the table for a vote at Monday night’s school board meeting; this increase will represent the highest increase among our neighbors. TESD is a great school district, and one for which we all can be proud, but likewise could be said for Lower Merion, Great Valley and Radnor school districts. My guess is that the argument that some will make is that TESD currently has a lower tax rate than these other mentioned school districts and therefore taxpayers are in a better position to afford the tax increase. Correct?

I have not done a research analysis but I believe that TESD may have the highest fund balance of any of these neighboring school districts. (In fact, I think I read somewhere that TESD fund balance is one of the highest in the state). Some could argue that the fund balance represents over-taxing of residents in prior years, so . . . now that the taxpayers of this community need financial relief can we ask that the TESD use more of the reserve and lessen our property tax increase?

To help the community, the teachers, secretaries, custodians, cooks and maintenance personnel in this school district have shown us the meaning of shared sacrifice. Is it possible that TESD will acknowledge the sacrifices of the District taxpayers, and lower the expected property tax increase? Or, is this just wishful thinking on my part . . . ?

Looks like the 422 Tolling Vision has Taken a Step Forward to Becoming Tomorrow’s Reality!

June 7, 2011
30 Comments

The vision of some to toll 422 moved one step closer to a reality yesterday . . . and by all accounts, did so with flying colors.

Barry Seymour of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) along with Joe Hoeffel, Montgomery County Commissioner presented the 422-tolling proposal to the Governors Transportation Funding Advisory Commission. To review the 422 Corridor Plus slide presentation from the meeting, click here. — I found the information detailed and informative; helped to give me a better picture on the scope of the project.

I was curious to hear the comments and reactions to the 422 presentation and spoke with a Paoli resident who attended the Harrisburg meeting. Reportedly, there was no tolling opposition from the advisory group – in fact, there was much positive feedback from those in attendance. Although this meeting is only the first step in a long process, it seems that the DVRPC’s presentation answered several of the questions that I had —

If approved, what the timeline for the 422 project: 2015.
How much commuter time saved: DVRPC estimates 20 min.
Toll costs: A range, $.50 – $2.65, depending on distance travelled. Four electronic toll booths to be constructed; drivers to use EZ pass.

As discussed earlier, the management of the 422 tolling project would remain local and all revenue generated from the project would be used for local projects, including the light rail commuter train. I don’t know how I feel about creating another commission or board for this project. According to a friend, this project could fall under the umbrella of the PA Turnpike Commission with a mandate to keep the tolls generated from 422 locally in Berks, Montgomery and Chester counties. If that’s the case, why create another board; why not have the project fall under the Turnpike Commissioner’s responsibility. I guess the thought is if the project is handled separately under local management, it helps sell the project to residents and possibly adds a level guarantee that the tolling dollars remain here.

In asking how the project would be funded, I was told that initially it would be funded with a $1 billion bond, which would be repaid by tolling revenue. I’m guessing that the bond issue needs support from the local municipalities involved – would the funding of the project require a voter referendum in the Chester, Montgomery and Berks county districts involved?

Looks like the 422 tolling vision of some has taken a step forward to becoming tomorrow’s reality!

For Whom the Road Tolls: Day of Reckoning for Rt. 422 Tolling Begins

June 5, 2011
14 Comments

The tolling of Rt. 422 was front-page headlines in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Rising to the top of the local news charts, the tolling of 422 is not ‘new’ news for most of us. Unless you have had your head buried in the sand, you could not have missed this much discussed campaign topic during the last State House 157 election cycle. There was much heated debate from both sides on the ‘to toll or not to toll’ 422 issue.

If you are one of the 110,000+ commuters who daily sit in parking lot gridlock, known as Rt. 422, it looks like there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Tomorrow (Monday), Barry Seymour of Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) will present agenda item, ‘US 422 Plus: A Proposal for Funding Improvements’ (click here for agenda) to the Governors Transportation Funding Advisory Committee. The DVRPC $625K plan “would create a locally run authority to collect 11 cents per mile and keep that money to fund improvements such as new lanes”. Seymour hopes his DVRPC plan will convince the advisory committee and ultimately Gov. Corbett of the value of the 422-tolling project.

If granted legislative approval, the project would become the first locally managed highway toll system of its kind in Pennsylvania . . . a ‘model’ for the state. All of the revenue would be devoted to 422-corridor projects and DVRPC plan supporters believe that making Rt. 422 a toll road in Berks, Montgomery and Chester counties is the only way to pay for a new passenger-rail service to Reading and to finance the badly needed upgrades to the congested highway.

Others voice opposition to the 422 tolling issue, including our own State Rep Warren Kampf. Still standing behind his campaign promise to voters not to toll 422, Kampf believes that “Tolling is just another way of taxing people going to work in these hard economic times. They’re already paying a lot of money in gas taxes and other fees” and he doesn’t “think that this is something they want.”

Where does this leave the frustrated, brake-slamming, horn-worthy commuters who suffer the daily use of Route 422? Maybe answers will emerge as the day of reckoning begins in Harrisburg tomorrow.

Looking for a Job? Local Government has Openings

June 4, 2011
11 Comments

Our local government has a couple of immediate employment opportunities – for a Director of Public Works and a Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer.

Steve Norcini’s last day on the job as Tredyffrin’s Director of Public Works Department was this past Friday. It is my understanding that Steve left Tredyffrin for a new job as the director of Public Works in Radnor Township. Under Steve’s leadership in Tredyffrin, the Public Works Department successfully battled the last couple of winters for the residents – this was no easy task and the residents were very grateful for the long hours and time to keep the roads cleared for the residents. Snow removal was just one responsibility on the long job description list as head of Tredyffrin’s Public Works Department.

Tredyffrin’s loss of Steve Norcini is Radnor’s gain . . . he will be missed! Congratulations and best wishes Steve!

Here is a partial description of the Director of Public Works position. If you are interested in the position, email a cover letter and resume to the attention of Mimi Gleason, Township Manager, director@tredyffrin.org .

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

The Director of Public Works must be well-organized with strong leadership and motivational skills. Capital projects must be demonstrably well-designed and cost effective. Effective communication with the public and staff is a must. The next Director must have the ability to develop a strong relationship with employees to maintain trust and morale while addressing the challenges facing local units of government today. Other necessary skills include effective budgeting, smart use of technology and time management. New initiatives will include developing performance measures and using web-based technology for work orders.

Minimum qualifications: Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or related field and ten years experience, at least five years in a supervisory capacity in Public Works or a closely related field. Excellent benefits, salary based on qualifications.

Click here for job description.

The second job opportunity currently available in our local government is for a Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer. Emmy Baldassarree, an employee of the township for 18 years, currently holds this position but will be retiring in a few short weeks. As Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer, Emmy is actively involved in much of the township zoning and application process in the township. As a member of HARB for a number of years, I have had the pleasure of working with Emmy . . . she will not be easy to replace and will be missed by many in the community. Here’s to a happy retirement Emmy, you earned it!

If you are interested or know someone who may be interested, below is the job description for the Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer position.

ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Professional position involving administration of the zoning permit review process, making determinations of compliance with the zoning ordinance and property maintenance ordinance, managing the application process for and providing professional advice and assistance to the Zoning Hearing Board, maintaining the zoning map, conducting on site inspections, researching zoning ordinance and subdivision and land development ordinance inquiries, preparing regular reports to the Board of Supervisors, attending professional association meeting and conferences to remain current on planning and community development trends.

Minimum qualifications: College degree with one year of related experience. Necessary skills include ability to communicate clearly and concisely orally and in writing, general proficiency with common computer programs and software including Microsoft Office and Arc View, and manage multiple tasks efficiently and simultaneously.

Full time position with excellent benefits and competitive salary. Send resume and references to: zoposition@tredyffrin.org EOE.

Reserve Funds Exceeding $3 Billion in PA Schools . . . But how Long Can School Districts Depend on Reserves to Balance Budgets?

June 3, 2011
1 Comment

There is an interesting report out this week about Pennsylvania schools, which states that schools across the state are holding more than $3 billion in reserve funds.

There is an ongoing debate about drawing from fund balances to balance school budgets, particularly in light of the current economic crisis. We have seen in the past 6 months of budget discussions that T/E School District is no different.

However, striking a balance between holding onto a buffer in the school district fund balance and increasing taxes doesn’t make for easy school board decisions. Some taxpayers have argued in the past, that the district fund balance in T/E is too large and that it represents past overtaxing of residents.

When looking at Gov. Corbett’s state education funding cuts and the rising costs to maintain teacher pensions, TESD finds itself in an enviable position — a school district that has a positive fund balance. Of course, when you look at the 5-year plan and pension costs, it is evident how quickly the funding buffer will disappear. So although TESD has a substantial fund balance, the pension contributions going forward will deplete the fund unless there is help from the state.

Question, should school districts be forced to use their fund balances to help make up the funding deficit from the state? Should the state be required to help school districts with the pension crisis or face the bankruptcy of school districts that cannot afford their contributions?

There are some interesting fund balance statistics from school districts around the state – here is the article in case you missed it.

Schools hold more than $3 billion in reserve funds — At least $1.7 billion may be set aside for pensions, bond ratings
By Darwyyn Deyo | PA Independent

HARRISBURG — Schools across Pennsylvania hold more than $2.8 billion in reserve funds, but legislators and school boards disagree about whether the money can be spent to buffer against proposed state government cuts this year.

The reserve funds are divided into two categories — designated and undesignated. The undesignated funds are not committed to any planned project. Designated funds and any other funds, such as capital reserves, are allocated to specific projects, such as new buildings.

School districts are required by state law to keep 5 percent of their annual spending in the undesignated reserve funds to preserve bond ratings. The Pennsylvania School Board Association, or PSBA, an association of school boards in the state, said that as recently as 2008-2009, 345 of the state’s 500 school districts had more than 10 percent of their spending in their reserve funds — more than double the expected amount.

Of those 345 districts, 223 districts held in excess of 15 percent. Out of the 500 school districts, 259 school districts saw their undesignated reserve funds increase in 2009-2010.

While many districts are holding plenty of cash in reserve, the number of districts with drained reserve funds is increasing. In 2008-2009, 14 school districts held a negative fund balance. The districts had overdrawn the undesignated funds for other purposes and had not repaid the money. In 2009-10, the number of overdrawn schools districts increased to 37.

The negative funds ranged from $64,217 at Farrell Area School District in Mercer County to more than $32.7 million at Philadelphia School District.

In undesignated reserve funds, the school districts – not including charter schools or other special programs – held more than $1.7 billion, which theoretically could be used for everything. In 2008-2009, school districts held $1.64 billion in undesignated reserve funds.

The data, said David Davare, director of research for the PSBA, is from this past year’s balance sheets, so there is no indication yet on whether school districts dipped into the reserve this year and further depleted the savings. “That number that was just released … was based on the school year that ended last June 30,” said Davare. “In 2008-2009, 156 districts consumed some portion of their fund balance as part of the school operations … so I don’t know how many districts planned on consuming (their) fund balance based on the current year.”

Blackhawk School District in Beaver County holds the least amount in undesignated reserve funds with $28,799. Delaware School District in Pike County held the most with more than $9 million.

State Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks, chairman of the House Education Committee, said he would be open to school districts using undesignated reserve funds to help restore some of the funds that have been trimmed from the state’s education budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year. The state is proposing spending $10.19 billion on education, compared to the $10.77 billion it spent for fiscal year 2010-11.

“Yes, I would use it cautiously,” said Clymer. “Going to the limit — these dollars have to be held in reserve. Those that can do it and not risk the surplus they have accrued over the years, I would support that. It can only go so far and they will hit the required level as required by the school codes” for bond ratings.

State Rep. James Roebuck, D-Philadelphia, minority chairman of the House Education Committee, took the opposite view and argued that the state government still has to provide a “thorough and efficient” public education system, as outlined in the state constitution.

Using reserve funds “shouldn’t necessarily be predicated upon the individual districts coming up with money to do what the state is supposed to do,” said Roebuck. “The state has reduced, substantially, its commitment to public education and done away with significant initiatives that underwrite things like full-day kindergarten, dual enrollment to transition from basic to higher education,” he said.

Beth Winters, director of legislative services for the PSBA, pointed to the upcoming pension spike as a reason not to spend the reserve fund dollars now. By 2028, school districts face paying $30.6 million into the Public School Employees Retirement System, a contribution that will increase to $36 million by 2032.

“If you actually take a look at the public pension and special education costs, those fund balances will be depleted,” said Winters. “School districts are looking at this from a long-term basis, and if you look at the pension numbers, we’re going to have 20 years of double digit pension contributions (that) employers are going to make. … Those fund balances are to cover those costs.”

Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Republicans, said “school districts’ undesignated reserve funds will receive a good deal of focus during the ongoing budget discussions.”

The state Senate has opposed the education cuts proposed budget.

T/E School Board’s Special Meeting on June 1 includes Amended TENIG Agreement . . . No Custodial Outsourcing but What about the $800K Proposed Savings?

May 31, 2011
31 Comments

The TESD 2011-12 budget process started in late 2010 and has included multiple budget, finance and school board meetings and updates to the public. The school board and administration have worked to present a timeline of budget information and to keep us informed on budget strategies. Hearing the ‘shared sacrifice’ appeal from the Board to the Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) teachers union, both sides were able to come to an agreement for the 2011-12 school year, which included a salary wage freeze. The process was tedious and both TESD and TEEA appeared satisfied with the results.

Throughout the budget process, the administration and Board supported TESD’s educational standard as its focus and priority. Any budget strategies requiring cuts to educational programming was only with much discussion. One such expense reduction decision was the budget strategy that included eliminating Latin and German in the middle school . . . a difficult decision, but one that was required to help bridge the budget deficit. Generally, I have observed willingness on the Board’s part to fully disseminate the budget information and to keep the budget process as transparent as possible. It is for that very reason that I find this week’s special board meeting and the notification of agenda items (or lack of notification) somewhat troubling.

I received email notification last week of TESD’s upcoming special board meeting on Wednesday, June 1 at 5:30 PM. The stated purpose of the meeting is to approve the Conestoga High School graduating Class of 2011. There was no mention of any other agenda items at the meeting – and I probably would not have bothered to check further except that a township resident alerted me. In review, the June 1 agenda includes a “proposal to amend the TENIG collective bargaining agreement”. Contained in the agenda materials is the proposed amended TENIG agreement and schedule of wages, effective 4/29/11 – 6/30/14. (Click Here for meeting agenda, see pgs. 5-7 for TENIG agreement and schedule of wages).

I will discuss the contents of the TENIG agreement and wages later in this post, but first I will address TESD process as it relates to the outsourcing of custodial services. For months, there has been discussion at the budget, finance and regular school board meetings about the possibility of outsourcing of custodial services as a budget strategy option. At each meeting where details of the budget were presented, there was always a slide indicating the possible savings of $800K for custodial outsourcing. To quantify the District savings, the administration sent out a RFP for custodial outsourcing earlier in the year. According to the School Board Meeting Minutes of 3/21/11, “. . . the results of bidding on outsourcing custodial services will be available on April 4 and will be provided to TENIG for review. The committee will evaluate the bid results as an option to balance the budget”.

The School Board Meeting Minutes of 4/25/11 further reflected that “. . . The District is in the process of analyzing bid results for the outsourcing of custodial staff. These bid results have been shared with TENIG, and we continue discussions with TENIG on alternatives to outsourcing. . . “

At the May 9 School Board Meeting, the 2011-12 Final Budget was presented; (Click Here for Final Budget) Page 15 shows the following:

*Remaining Budget Shortfall ($2,183,448)
Options to Close Shortfall:
1. Outsourcing Custodial Services: $800,000
2. Pay Increase Waiver TENIG only: $300,000
3. Additional Budget Strategies $0
4. Use of Fund Balance $2,183,448
(Tentative for Proposed Final Budget on May 9th)
*Includes TEEA Proposal of 50% Pay Increase Waiver of May 6th

Contained in the proposed final budget is the salary freeze offer from the teachers union, TEEA. There was no mention in the budget presentation of the status of the custodial services outsourcing or of TENIG’s contract.

After the meeting, I mentioned to a couple of Board members that I was surprised that custodial outsourcing was not on the agenda nor was there any mention made of the results of the bids for the outsourcing; but received no response. There was indication in the final budget (see above chart) that one of the few options remaining to close the shortfall was outsourcing of custodial services — an expected savings of $800K. How many outsource bids were received? What were the offers? How did the custodial outsourcing bids stack up against TENIG’s contract for custodial services?

Following the May 9 school board meeting, the TESD released a press release summarizing the proposed final budget:

http://www.tesd.net/2127101028153743227/lib/2127101028153743227/11may9.pdf

Highlights of the proposed 2011-12 proposed final budget includes:
(1) Property tax increase of 3.77%, which equates to an average increase of $171 to T/E homeowners;
(2) $3.85 million in expense reductions and revenue increases;
(3) And $2.25 million in fund balance contribution to address the $8.9 million budget gap between revenues and expenditures.

The press release further explained that the proposed final budget includes the offer from the T/E instructional collective bargaining unit (TEEA). As was the case at the TESD Board Meeting, the summary does not (1) address the projected savings resulting from outsourcing custodial services ($800K) or (2) pay increase waiver from non-instructional collective bargaining unit, TENIG ($300K). According to the May 9 School Board Meeting Minutes these are the only remaining options to close the budget shortfall

What I find fascinating in the May 9 press release is the statement that the Board is “still evaluating other options to close the budget shortfall and will present the final budget on June 13”.

We now fast forward to tomorrow’s special board meeting and find that negotiations between TESD and TENIG have apparently already taken place and there is now a proposal for an amended TENIG agreement.

Questions: What happened with the custodial outsourcing bid process? What were the results of the bids? Why did the notification for tomorrow’s special board meeting not include any mention of the TENIG amended agreement proposal?

The custodial services outsourcing process began correctly but somehow the Board lost the transparency in the process and now we are left with the end product – the amended TENG contract. Although the Board continued to say meeting after meeting that there were looking at the final remaining budget savings options, we skip over the $800K option to outsource custodial services without explanation. To be fair, it is entirely possible that after reviewing the bids for outsourcing, the Board decided for any number of reasons (cost, student security, etc.) that they wanted to keep the custodial service ‘as is’ and covered by TENIG. These reasons could be valid – but why not let the public know why and how that decision was made?

Now we if look at the amended TENIG agreement; I have received several questions and concerns from taxpayers on this matter. Yes, TENIG has agreed to a salary freeze for 2011-12 year and I think that savings may be $300K. However, there are two additional years to the TENIG contract with increases of 4.5% each year. Was there any attempt by the Board to negotiate those increases? Is it possible that the District is (1) losing the cost savings of outsourcing custodial services and (2) additionally giving a pay increase to custodial staff?

The Board has been so diligent in their budget review process when cutting educational programs and increasing student fees (increased student parking fees and driver’s education training), I am surprised that non-education wages of TENIG are increased.

In closing, I have a couple of problems: (1) where was the transparency in the outsourcing process, and (2) understanding there remains a $2+ million budget shortfall in TESD, how can the Board rationalize an increase in TENIG wages in 2012 and 13 when the District has been forced to cut educational programming and increase fees.

Once a State Rep Campaign Debate, Could the Tolling of Rt. 422 be a ‘Model’ for Tolling Highways across the State?

May 28, 2011
13 Comments

What’s the saying, ‘What Goes Around, Comes Around” . . . ?

For most of the year 2010, voters of Tredyffrin Township had a front row seat as the ‘tolling of Rt. 422’ issue became a political football in the PA State House 157 race between incumbent State Rep Paul Drucker (D) and challenger Warren Kampf (R). Some political insiders might even argue that Drucker’s stance on 422 tolling may have contributed to the loss of his state representative position last November.

Although a heated campaign issue, post-election the tolling of Rt. 422 has had nearly non-existent discussion. That is until now. According to Pennsylvania Independent, an on-line news service, the 25-mile, four-lane US Route 422 will be promoted on Monday, June 6 as a potential ‘model’ for tolling highways across the state as a means to increase transportation funding.

Gov. Corbett’s recently appointed 30-member Transportation Funding Commission will hear a presentation on how tolls would work on Rt. 422 in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties. The executive commission is looking at a way to generate at least $2.5 billion in annual transportation funding for infrastructure needs and the ‘tolling of 422’ may serve as the state’s model for how to do it.

According to Barry Schoch, Secretary of Transportation for Pennsylvania and chairman of the commission, “Route 422 model would allow county or municipal authorities to form a ‘local taxation authority’ and keep the revenue from tolls and local taxes dedicated for local highways”.

Construction of a local suburban commuter rail line was one of the possible uses of 422 tolls and a means to alleviate some of the highway traffic. If you recall, the Philadelphia-based Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) created a Route 422 Corridor Master Plan and presented their findings in 2010 to local municipalities, including Tredyffrin Township. Their plan, among other things, provided for a light rail commuter service and suggested tolling on Rt. 422 as a way of financing the project.

During 2010, the tolling of 422 provided a major talking point for the Drucker and Kampf political campaigns. Drucker supported DVRPC and the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan, which included tolling of 422. However, Drucker was specific that the tolling was for the commuter who was traveling the entire stretch of the highway on a regular basis, not the occasional user or those that would use it on-off.

In response to Drucker, Kampf’s opposing position on the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan was simple. On his campaign website, Kampf stated “My position on tolling Route 422 is clear: I oppose it.” Remaining true to his campaign words, when asked to respond to the upcoming Transportation Funding Commission presentation to use tolling of 422 as a model for the state, Kampf said, “Tolling is another way of taxing people. . .” He is opposed to using state and local funds to build, operate and maintain a commuter rail line that would benefit rail commuters at the expense of others.

Like much of the country, many of Pennsylvania’s roads and bridges are in crisis; desperately in need of repairs. Although lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree on the infrastructure needs, they may not be as unified in the funding solutions. No one has a crystal ball, but we now see evidence from Corbett’s Transportation Funding Commission that supports Drucker’s vision for the future . . . a suburban commuter rail line and the use of tolls to finance infrastructure improvements.

Some could argue that State Rep Kampf battled former State Rep Drucker successfully on the 422 tolling issue, but it looks like Kampf could face a far greater challenge in Harrisburg . . . and, from both sides.

TTDEMS Chair Dariel Jamieson Offers Comment on Special Election Ballot Hand-Counting

May 26, 2011
8 Comments

Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, provided a comment to Community Matters. Jamieson’s remarks speak directly to the hand count by Chester County Department of Voter Services on Monday of the Special Election ballots. Her remarks provide us with further details of the recounting process and I thought it important to provide them in this post (see below).

In her remarks, Jamieson brings up an interesting point – it certainly would have helped if Voter Services had run the ballots through a voting machine prior to the hand count. I would think that if Voter Services could duplicate the machine malfunction error, there would be a greater probability of correcting the problem! Echoing a question that another CM reader posed, what were the candidates told by Voter Services as the ‘reason’ for the 61 uncounted votes.

[Subsequent to this post, Dariel Jamieson has provided an official press release from the TTDEMS, click here to read. According to Jamieson’s information, over 100 of the 223 precincts in Chester County have not reported voting irregularities. In my opinion, there should be a complete internal examination of systems and procedures at the Department of Voter Services.]

In reading between-the-lines of Jamieson’s remarks, is there a sense that the end of the story may not yet be told?

Comment from Dariel Jamieson, Chair, Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee

I have been told by our witnesses that there was NOT a machine count of the Tredyffrin votes prior to the full manual recount. We believe Voter Services acted with good intentions, thinking it would be helpful to speed resolution of the special election by going right to a manual count. While this did speed things up, I personally believe that a machine count first might have shed some light on how and why the machines might have been malfunctioning.

Voter Services also told our witnesses that there was no way to know for sure that all the uncounted ballots were Republican, although seeing the outcome of counting them Makes it look like they were. We were told that all the ballots that were accepted into the machines end up in the same compartment, so it could not definitively be said which ones were counted and which were not. If something was wrong with only Republican ballots, why did they not all reject?

A reconciliation of the number of ballots that were counted in the manual count has not yet been reconciled to the number of signatures in the sign in sheets and names in the poll books. Voter Services has said that those kinds of reconciliations will be done after all the precincts in the County have gone through the official count process. If those numbers all match, then one could conclude that the number of physical ballots that were manually counted was the correct number of ballots. If they should not match, one would have to ask where the additional ballots came from.

Speculation that putting the ballots in face up, face down, backward, or with poor tears of the perforation could all be possible, but that seems incompatible with the idea that all the unread ballots were Republican.

And adding 61 ballots to the mix will almost certainly change the totals in the other races, bur probably not enough to change any primary election vote outcomes.

We, too, are waiting for answers.

Hand-Count of Duffy-Heaberg Special Election Ballots in Tredyffrin Finds 61 Uncounted Ballots . . . Changes the Outcome of the Race

May 24, 2011
33 Comments

A week ago the polls closed, the votes were counted and unofficially Democrat Molly Duffy had won the Special Election against Republican Mike Heaberg by 40 votes. Chester County Department of Voter Services listed unofficially Duffy receiving 2,266 votes and Heaberg with 2,226 votes.

Immediately following the closing of the polls, there was discussion of voting inaccuracies and talk of machine malfunctions. We learned first hand from Steve Shapiro, the Judge of Elections at the W-2 precinct, that there were an additional 5 ballots found in the voting machine that were not counted. There were reports of similar malfunctioning machines at four or five other precincts in the township. As a result, Chester County Voter Services conducted a daylong hand-count yesterday of all 17 voting precincts in Tredyffrin. Duffy and Heaberg attended the recounting by Voter Services, as did their attorneys and representatives from the Tredyffrin Township Democratic and Republican parties.

Late yesterday, after recounting all the ballots by hand, it was determined that 61 ballots were not originally counted, changing the results of the special election. Of the 61 ballots found not counted, nine additional votes went to Duffy and 52 additional votes went to Heaberg. The new unofficial vote total indicates Duffy receiving 2,275 and Heaberg receiving 2,278 . . . a difference of 3 votes, this time in favor of Heaberg. If this total is accurate, it may be the closest supervisor election in the township’s history.

It is my understanding that there was vote count issues found in 12 of the 17 precincts. How is this possible? That strikes me as a very high percentage of malfunctioning machines! However, at this point, it is unclear to me if the problems were attributable only to machine malfunctions or if there were other types of errors. Who could have predicted that a 40-vote difference in favor of one candidate could change with a recount to favor the other candidate by 3 votes? What is the probability of that happening?

Again, there is caution that the new special election vote totals are unofficial until certified. Do we believe that the hand-count is accurate and that this final vote count will stand? Or, will it take 4-5 weeks as previously explained, for the certification process? Assuming the new hand-count number is correct; will the Democrats challenge the election results?

For me, I’m still stuck on how 61 ballots went uncounted . . . and how many times in past elections has this same scenario played out but may have gone unchecked? It really makes one wonder.

Bottom line, until there is official confirmation on the special election results, I guess we just need to stay tuned.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme