Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 18 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

The TE School Board held an executive meeting last night and have decided against outsourcing of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers for the 2013-14 school year! This is great news for the District’s children and their families, the employee and the school district community!

Below is the email from the Kevin Buraks to the employees:

June 6, 2013

Dear T/E School District Aides, Para-educators and Paraprofessionals,

I write to you on behalf of the T/E School Board to inform you that the Board will not outsource our aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in the 2013-14 school year. This action is in response to what we learned from you on our visits on May 21, 2013.

The District will restructure the work hours of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in a manner that complies with the Affordable Care Act and does not result in new costs or penalties to the District. The 2013-14 approved Proposed Final Budget does not require adjustment and continues to reflect a 1% raise for all aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals, as well as associated PSERS benefit costs. In addition, the School Board is not required to take any action since the budget is unaffected by this authorization. As I shared with you on May 21st, we greatly value and appreciate the contributions that you make to our students and staff every day. I wish you the best for a successful closing of the school year, a fine summer and look forward to seeing you in the fall.

Sincerely,

Kevin Buraks

President

Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board

Say No to Outsourcing in TESD … An Outsourcing Alternative

June 6, 2013

4 Comments

The decision about outsourcing the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers should not only be about money. It should be about doing what’s right — these employees are part of our community and deserve to be treated fairly. The outsourcing sales pitch may seem like the answer but it’s not a panacea. I hope that the Board and the administration will re-think the proposed outsourcing … tripping over dollars to pick-up pennies is not a solution.

Following the May 13^th TE School Board meeting, the community was left with many unanswered questions related to the proposed outsourcing of the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers. Requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the effect that compliance will have on the District are at the core of the situation. The aides, paras and substitute teachers are the only group of TESD employees not currently receiving health care benefits. As of January 1, 2014, the ACA will require the District to offer these benefits to all employees working 30 hours or more.

Since the last School Board meeting, the aides, paras and substitute teachers, representing all 8 District schools, have met three times and I attended the meetings. The mission of the meetings was to disseminate information and discuss acceptable alternatives to outsourcing. The meetings were intended to provide a ‘safe’ forum where affected employees could express their concerns and ask questions, yet some did not attend, fearing workplace retribution for their participation.

At my request, Neal Colligan attended the meetings and helped us understand how the District could comply with the ACA without resorting to outsourcing. I want to be clear that neither Neal nor I represent these employees – we are simply residents seeking a solution to a community issue. Through the discussion with the paraeducators and other members of the community, an outsourcing alternative evolved. As part of the collaborative effort, Neal spoke with health care experts to better understand the requirements of the ACA and what compliance would mean for the District.

The parameters of the ACA requires that the school district offer health insurance to its employees that work 30 hours or more that is both affordable and of minimum value. Currently the only group of employees in the District not receiving health care benefits is the aides, paras and substitute teachers. The ‘affordable’ test means that the employee cannot be asked to pay more than 9.5% of their household salary for insurance. The insurance plan is of minimum value if “the plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan” is at least 60% of such costs.

Given the information available, Neal created a conceptual outsourcing alternative that would comply with the law and keep the jobs of 260 employees from outsourcing. (Click here for copy of the outsourcing alternative). The alternative was presented to the aides, paras and substitute teachers in attendance at this week’s meeting and copies were sent to the administration and school board members for their review (in advance of Monday’s Finance Committee meeting).

Neal provided the following explanation of the outsourcing alternative for today’s Community Matters post:

As the District has spent all of its time on a plan to outsource to avoid the Affordable Care Act (ACA); we based our plan on the idea of complying with the new Federal Law. With the help of community members and industry experts, we were able to price a health care insurance offering that is Affordable and meets the minimum standards required by the ACA. You will see in our analysis that complying with the Law (and offering a health care option) should be far less expensive to the district and its Taxpayers than paying the fee attached to outsourcing. We’ve also done some work on PSERS costs as it relates to this employee group and have devised a plan to neutralize those cost increases to the District.

Please know that this is a conceptual plan only. We did not have all of the information needed to develop “hard” numbers. The District, if it decides to investigate this option, would not be limited by estimates. Further, the cost of our insurance offering was also estimated. We believe this to be a conservative estimate as the District is a large insurance client and may be able to secure this type of plan at a more competitive cost. The new insurance plan offered (in our analysis) may be considered discriminatory as it is not of the caliber offered to the other District employee groups. Certainly it is no more discriminatory than the current situation where this employee group is not covered at all. We also believe the District is not in danger of violating the discriminatory parameters of the ACA as they do not meet the test of “fully insured employer” (they are partially self-insured…this may be too mush inside baseball for many).

We ask the District to consider this conceptual approach. We believe an alternative to outsourcing along these lines can and will produce a more cost-efficient and sustainable solution while keeping this employee group as District employees.

If you oppose outsourcing the jobs of the District’s aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers, please plan to attend these meetings:

Finance Committee Meeting: Monday, June 10 at 7 PM, Conestoga High School
School Board Meeting: Monday, June 17 at 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School

Against outsourcing in TE School District – Join the White Ribbon Campaign to show your support

June 4, 2013

12 Comments

The TE School District is currently exploring outsourcing the jobs of all aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in our School District.

It saddens me that vulnerable, dedicated employees have become the school district pawns, at the mercy of the School Board and the administration. ‘To outsource or not to outsource’ and the future of approximately 250 District employees (approx. total of aides, paras and substitute teachers) will be discussed at the June 10 Finance Committee meeting and then voted upon by the School Board at their June 17 meeting.

Without the benefit of a collective bargaining organization, there is little that this group can do to fight back against the outsourcing of their jobs. Although many TE School District employees in this group are also Tredyffrin or Easttown residents, they have virtually no say in the decision-making process. This community values the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers for their dedication and caring support of the District’s children. As employees of the TE School District, this group of people deserves better treatment from the administration and the Board.

A lack of transparency and openness from the administration and Board has continued during this outsourcing process, to both the residents of the District and to those most affected — the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers. Misinformation or lack of information remained following the outsourcing presentation at the May 13 school board meeting. Although some of us learned that the District’s preferred outsourcing vendor, STS, withdrew their proposal, there is no information on the District website or press releases from either the School Board or administration indicating the change. I only learned the details myself by speaking directly with the president of STS, Jay Godwin.

Bringing awareness of the proposed outsourcing to all residents of the school district is paramount. Parents need to know that the best interests of the District’s children are the priority of the Board and administration. District employees need to know that the Board, administration and the community value them.

Support keeping the jobs of TE School District aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in our District. If you oppose the District’s proposed outsourcing of this important group of employees, show your support with a white ribbon. Tie a white ribbon on your tree, mailbox or light post. If you are District employee, wear a white ribbon in support of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. If you are a student in the District, maybe you can wear a white arm band or white ribbon to indicate support for the District employees whose jobs are threatened.

We only have a week until the Finance Committee on June 10 — let’s show our support for the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Just spotted this ‘Say NO to Outsourcing in T/E ” in the Great Valley section of the District!-

Harassment, intimidation and bullying have no place in our schools …

May 31, 2013

43 Comments

The troubling stories of intimidation by the TE School District administration continue, as does the School Board’s silence regarding this issue. After “As I See It: Tredyffrin Easttown School District … Intimidation to Silence” appeared in Main Line Suburban, I received additional phone calls and emails from former and current District employees, describing our schools as a workplace which seeks to control and silence. A former TE teacher wrote, “Employees have noted for years that they felt bullied and targeted when raising any questions or concerns regarding building and/or programming changes.” From a current District aide, “The negativity and lack of respect from the administration is always present.”

What is really going on behind the walls of our schools – the morale continues to plummet but other than bringing awareness to the problem, there is no indication that anything is changing or that anyone on the School Board is actually listening. Disappointingly, there has been no response to either of the two emails sent to School Board President Kevin Buraks in regards to this matter. Some may suggest that Buraks does not respond because he is in re-election campaign mode and does not want to risk his quotes appearing on Community Matters. If that is the case, I wonder what excuse is offered for not responding to the concerns of other School District residents. How about a press release suggesting that the School Board is addressing employee concerns and claims of intimidation? The employees need to know that their contributions are valued and that they have a right to a working environment free from harassment and intimidation.

By speaking out, employees feel that their jobs are threatened. Following the School Board meeting, the administration suggested to certain TENIG members that they had no business attending the meeting. These individuals did not speak at the meeting (although if TESD residents, they have that right); they merely attended the meeting. I find this level of control by intimidation from the administration extremely disturbing. All employees deserve a supportive working environment not a place where they fear losing their jobs for raising questions or concern.

With the level of discontent, negativity and lack of respect that many District employees are indicating, I simply do not understand why the School Board does not investigate and find answers. Why should employees fear retribution from the District administration for speaking out or … in the case of some TENIG workers, for just showing up a public meeting? When a District employee speaks as a citizen at a meeting, does the First Amendment not protect them? How is it possible that a school district is allowed to exercise control over an employee’s private speech.

There are examples of intimidation and low morale of the employees from all areas of the District — the kitchen staff, the custodians, the aides and the teachers. Large segments of the employee community feel disconnected from the District leadership; leaving them to question why the School Board seemingly does not care. How do the members of the School Board rationalize and not react to what District employees are saying? I will say it again, this is not some isolated, disgruntled employee looking for attention but rather the new reality of what it means to be a TE School District employee. Respect and support should be commonplace on the education ladders of TE schools, regardless of whom you are or whom you know.

There’s no magic wand to make this simmering problem within our schools disappear. Increasing awareness suggests that our award-winning TE School District needs a thorough internal examination and review to look at what is really going on inside our school walls.

——————————————————————————

Footnote: In a quick Google search, I found ‘School Perceptions’, an independent research company that collects data, conducts internal examinations, professional development, benchmark surveys, etc. and measures feedback from community, parents, students and staff in public and private schools. According to their website, their mission is to “help educational leaders gather, organize and use data to make strategic decisions” by measuring what matters. I understand the economics of the School District and I realize that School Perceptions, or a similar company, does not come without a price tag however … this situation requires action. One solution is an independent examination and review of the working environment of the District employees.

End of VFMS tennis court saga – Zoning Hearing Board approves variance

May 24, 2013

7 Comments

The tennis courts at Valley Forge Middle School received their reprieve at last night’s Zoning Hearing Board. After 4+ hours of listening to various appeals, finally at 11 PM, the TE School District presented its case for a variance that would permit the additional parking spaces and keep the tennis courts. The combined impervious coverage of the additional parking spaces and the tennis courts is slightly more than the township stormwater permits. The District’s application to the ZHB sought a variance for the additional impervious coverage.

The fate of the District’s tennis courts was contingent on the ZHB ruling. Had the ZHB denied the variance to the District, the VFES tennis courts would have been demolished. After testimony from the School District attorney and architect plus members of the community, including impassioned remarks from VFMS neighbor Don. Detweiler, the ZHB members rendered their decision in favor of the variance. With a 2-1 vote (chair Dan McLaughlin dissented), the tennis courts appear to have been saved. Previously the Facilities chair Pete Motel voiced concern that to save the tennis would cost the District $14K to the contractor not to demolish the tennis courts. The Board of Supervisors waived the ZHB filing fee of $2K to the District. With the approval of the ZHB variance, presumably the School Board will approve the ‘saving of the tennis courts’ and the District will move ahead with the summer parking lot expansion at VFMS.

The audience was told that the decisions of the Zoning Hearing Board are not precedential to other appeals, so … does that mean that others seeking relief from stormwater requirements will not be able to cite the tennis court decision? Just asking the question …

Will outsourcing in TE School District signal decline of property values?

May 12, 2013

20 Comments

At the Monday TE School Board meeting, our community’s taxpayers, parents and School District employees deserve an open and honest discussion on the impact of outsourcing. If the jobs of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers are outsourced with a third party contractor, we deserve to know the long-term costs and financial benefits, if any. Based on the numbers provided at the Financial Committee meeting, I am not convinced that outsourcing is a cost-savings measure.

Outsourcing subjects our most vulnerable students, those with special needs, to a revolving door of low-paid, less qualified replacements hired by the low bidder outside contractor. Is this better for children with special needs than keeping the dedicated longtime TE employees who parents and students trust and respect?

And what about the taxpayers in the community who don’t have children in the school district … the issue of outsourcing affects you too. To date, Tredyffrin and Easttown Township residents have enjoyed stable real estate values; the reputation of the T/E School District a key to the sustainability. The quality of a school district affects local property values and as a result, homeowners are willing to pay a premium. With the outsourcing of paraprofessionals in T/E, I think we will see the beginning of a downturn in our home values. Everyone needs to understand that if the School Board votes on Monday to outsource the aides and paraeducators, the jobs of the District’s custodians, kitchen workers and support staff will not be far behind. The homeowners in this School District should have assurances that living in the T/E community will continue to mean sustainability of the home real estate values.

Upon his election as T/E School Board president in December 2012, Kevin Buraks stated, “We’re benefiting families with kids who are in school because they’re getting a top-level education that they’ll have for the rest of their lives. I think we’re also benefiting families who don’t have kids in school, because we’re keeping high property values because the schools are ranked in the top of the state”. Contrary to what you stated 5 months ago, I would argue Mr. Buraks that outsourcing of aides is not beneficial to our families and outsourcing will certainly not keep our property values high. Perhaps, President Buraks should review his own words prior to the outsourcing vote.

Scott Dorsey sent in a comment for the last Community Matters post but rather than have it buried in the stream of comments, I am adding it to this post. Mr. Dorsey is a School Board candidate and voices strong opposition to outsourcing. Opposing Dorsey in Tredyffrin Region II is currently serving School Board Director Rich Brake. In Tredyffrin Region I, incumbent Kevin Buraks is challenged by Peter Connors. The four Easttown Region III candidates are Doug Carlson, Virgnia Latner, Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim.

Primary Election Day is May 21 and knowing where candidates stand on issues has never been more important than in 2013. I invite current School Board Directors Buraks and Brake and candidates Connors, Carlson, Latner, Piccioni and Kim to submit a personal statement on the issue of outsourcing. Similarly to Scott Dorsey’s statement, all statements received prior to Monday night’s meeting will appear on Community Matters. (Although Betsy Fadem and Anne Crowley are not seeking re-election, they are welcome to submit outsourcing statements as well Pete Motel, Jim Bruce, Liz Mercogliano and Kris Graham.)

From Scott C. Dorsey …

As a resident of Tredyffrin, I stand firmly against any proposal that would outsource the jobs of my fellow neighbors. I truly believe there is an assault on those who have no union representation and it is time for our community to let its voice be heard.

I am saddened by the latest actions of our School Board. The Board has lost its way in giving our top administrators a sweet pay increase and retirement bonus while pushing paraprofessionals out to the lowest outsourcer bid. I understand the Board struggles to find financial opportunities to keep the school district solvent, but do we stoop to tactics of harassing nonprofit organizations by questioning their tax status or attempting to tear down neighborhood popular tennis courts? Do we discard loyal and valued employees who contribute to our students’ success?

Why are they making these decisions without the full input of the community? Where is the transparency?

Government can’t solve all the problems on its own, but Tredyffrin has been a community where people of all backgrounds can raise their families and provide their children a great education. In recent years, our educational system has come under attack. It is time to have public meetings and hear the voices of our neighbors before making decisions that will radically change the character of our schools.

Outsourcing will not save the district money or be a better deal for aides and paraprofessionals, as some School Board members have suggested. I beg my friends on the Board to listen to the people. It is time to focus on investing, not slashing the greatness of our community. I ask all my neighbors to come to the School Board meeting on Monday night to oppose the outsourcing of our educational system. Let us fight to protect those who are oppressed. May God bless us to find the right solutions that will preserve a great school district by investing in its children and valued employees.

175 Aides and Paraeducators are on the verge of outsourcing in T/E School District — Help save their jobs!

May 9, 2013

57 Comments

It is almost impossible to believe that we live in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb with award winning, nationally ranked schools and our School Board is voting whether to outsource 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers at Monday’s School Board meeting.

Since attending the Finance Committee meeting and writing about it this week, I have heard from parents, residents, aides, TENIG members and teachers. Not a single person contacted me to say that they support outsourcing, touted as a cost-savings measure by the District. I understand that there is pressure to cut costs in the District budget but cutting costs should not be at the expense of our most vulnerable students.

Although the District business manager Art McDonnell presented a couple of slides at the Finance Committee meeting about outsourcing, many in the audience left short on answers and confused. Here’s a review of what I think we know at this point about the outsourcing. According to McDonnell, the staff researched outsourcing opportunities and met with five different vendors. We were not given the names of the other vendors, only the recommended vendor – Substitute Teachers Service, Inc. (STS). During the evening, it was repeatedly stated that STS is one of the nation’s largest outsourcing vendors and has been in the business for 25 years.

The “Analysis of Outsourcing of Aides and Paraeducators” slide indicated that the 2013-14 anticipated wage and benefits costs for aides and paraeducators is $3,359,784. The cost to the District to outsource with STS is 22.5% of actual wages paid to the aides and paraeducators. STS will pay all benefits form the 22.5%. It was unclear what those ‘benefits’ were beyond the required Social Security, etc. The agreement with STS will be for 3 years. The increased costs to the District for outsourcing in Year One is $126,307 and Year Two is $59,678. In Year Three, the District will see a projected savings of $529,544. How does the District go from losing money ($190K) the first two years to saving $500K? I have no idea.

The anticipated wages and benefit costs for substitutes for 2013-14 is $842,250. Like the aides and paraeducators, if outsourced to STS, the cost to the District is 22.5% of actual wages and vendor pays all ‘benefits’ out of the 22.5% and is a three-year agreement. The increased cost to the District is Year One of $76,500, Year Two of $60,112 and Year Three of $44,275. It is my understanding that the District will not see a savings until Year Six if the substitute teachers are outsourced! By outsourcing, the District loses money for 5 years before recognizing savings … and this is viewed as a solution?

To be very clear, should outsourcing occur, there is no guarantee that the aides and paraeducators will still have jobs in our school district. How do I know this absolutely … I asked that specific question at the Finance Meeting and was told by Sue Tiede that the District would ‘encourage’ STS to keep our employees. I asked if the District’s agreement with STS could mandate that the outsourcing company hire our employees and the answer was NO. I don’t view encouraging a vendor to hire our employees as any guarantee to the 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers.

When I asked the Board if STS would compensate the TE employees at their current pay level, the answer from Art McDonnell was no, he indicated that their pay would be lower if outsourcing occurs. However, by the end of the outsourcing discussion, that response shifted with Dan Waters stating that the outsourced employees would actually be paid more if they were outsourced. The rationale behind this claim – when outsourced, the paraprofessionals will not be making the 7.5% PSERS contribution so therefore the employee makes more money. What? This is not more money as the contribution was the employee’s money in the first place.

I’m asking the question again, ‘Where’s the fairness”? Three months ago, the School Board approved raises for the highest paid employees — the administrators. Now the Board is contemplating outsourcing the employees with the least amount of power, making the least amount of money. If you recall, the administrator raises were buried in a consent agenda; and we came very close to see a repeat performance with the outsourcing. The game plan at the Finance Committee meeting was to add outsourcing on the School Board meeting consent agenda. However, thanks to Board member Anne Crowley speaking out, outsourcing will be a priority discussion, which allows for public comment prior to the Board vote. How does the District balance raises to administrators against the outsourcing of aides … interesting interpretation of ‘shared sacrifice.’

In closing, I am including excerpts from some of the emails in the last few days in regards to the District’s proposed outsourcing:

From a District aide …

“These individuals have direct contact with our children on a daily basis. They are our greeters in the lobby, the aides who work one on one with special kids in the classrooms, they monitor lunch periods and recess, they work in the library and in the office , they assist teachers in the classroom, accompany our children on field trips and the do so much more. Many live in our community, have children in the school system. They are our neighbors and friends.

Personally, I worry that non-local strangers will be brought into our schools and not give the same quality of care and attention to our kids that my colleagues or I would. Our current aides have a college degrees and many master’s, they go through rigorous security screening by the district and by the school staff. Many have been working here for several years. “

From a resident …

“I challenge the School Board to spend some time really thinking about the outsourcing decision before you vote. Spend some time; really know what these people do, because those paraprofessionals have among the hardest jobs in the building. I’ve done that job; I respect the heck out of those people.”

From a TE teacher …

“This outsourcing will affect all students in various ways none of which are good. Paraprofessionals are partners to the teachers in the education process. They pick up where the teachers leave off. They are there to lend a hand when one or a few students need it, so teachers can continue teaching the other students in the classroom. I think the important message here is the fact that the role of paraprofessional in TESD is a very important one and I urge the Board to weigh the financial savings against the impact on our students. I’d like the Board to think about the students first. I think we’ve lost our way a little bit with regards to our students.”

From a parent of a special needs child …

“I completely support the paras of TE. They do this job because they love it and they love being with the children. The paras make very little money and many have teaching degrees. To me, as a parent, it makes me feel very comfortable sending my child who has special needs to school each day. I know what it would do to my child having a different face in class each day who doesn’t know what to do or how to help. Cutting costs should not come at the expense of our students. Both special needs and typically developing children benefit from having para professionals in our schools that are there every day.”

If you care about the future of 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District plan on attending the upcoming School Board Meeting. Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a paraprofessional, a TENIG member or a resident and oppose outsourcing, join me on Monday, May 13 at 7:30 PM at the T/E School District Administration Offices (TEAO), West Valley Business Center, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne.

Is outsourcing aides and paraeducators to avoid the cost of complying with the Affordable Care Act the right alternative for TE?

May 5, 2013

46 Comments

Rising pension and escalating health care costs are putting intense pressure on school districts to lower costs. Tredyffrin Easttown School District is no different and there will probably be outsourcing discussion at Monday’s Finance Committee meeting. Fueling the discussion of outsourcing TESD aides and paraeducators is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As of January 1, public schools are required to provide health care coverage to all employees working more than 30 hours per week. The penalty for not providing health care coverage will be steep and school districts will face significant fines for noncompliance.

There are around 150 aides/paraeducators working in the District. This group of employees is not included in the TENIG union and does not have benefits. Although TENIG is comprised of ‘non-instructional’ workers, I wonder if it would be possible to expand their membership to include the aides and paraeducators. There is strength in numbers; by increasing their membership could help TENIG when they fight their own outsourcing battle.

The District is currently not legally required to provide benefits to non-unionized support staff. Based on a right-to-know request filed by Keith Knauss, it appears that this group of employees does not have healthcare coverage. In response to Keith’s request for the benefit records of non-unionized staff, Art McDonnell’s response was, “The documents do not exist in School District records.” I take that to mean that the non-unionized staff receives no benefits. As a follow-up, I asked Keith about the benefits of non-union employees in Unionville-Chadds Ford School District. His response was that none of UCF’s 250+ support employees is unionized. However, most all are full-time and those that work 30+ hours per week receive standard benefits (healthcare, sick days, personal days, disability, life insurance).

If the interpretation of Art McDonnell’s response is correct and the aides/paraeducators do not receive health care benefits, then there is little doubt that the District is seriously considering outsourcing before the Affordable Care Act takes effect. While outsourcing may save the District money, is it really the right option? Special needs children and their families depend on the District aides and paraeducators. Mainstreaming children with special needs so they may interact and share a ‘regular’ education experience is an important task. Integral to a successful education experience is the consistency and established relationships with the support staff. How can the School Board consider outsourcing those employees who share the most personal, one-to-one relationship with our District’s students? It makes no sense that the children who need the most consistency will be subject to “outsourced” caretakers who can feasibly change daily based upon the staffing circumstances of the outside company.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention the obvious safety concerns that comes with wholesale turnover of 150 familiar District employees by outsourcing. Is the newly hired safety consultant aware of the District’s possible outsourcing? Have the consequences of outsourcing been thoroughly discussed by the District Safety Committee? We know that making our school buildings secure is important but so are background checks and appropriate oversight for those in contact with our children.

Is outsourcing aides and paraeducators to avoid the cost of complying with the Affordable Care Act the right alternative for TE?

Zoning Amendment Could be Solution to Saving the Tennis Courts

May 1, 2013

13 Comments

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda. According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member. I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion. The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application? If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application. Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded. Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment. Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

VFES Tennis Courts: Looking for an explanation from TESD President Kevin Buraks

April 22, 2013

5 Comments

The Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts are on tonight’s agenda of the TESD. Every time you think that this situation has moved forward, it takes a couple of steps backwards. As a result, it is unclear exactly what is going to come out of tonight’s meeting — will the courts stay or will they go?

At the District Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 12, the committee voted to recommend to the school board that the tennis courts be saved. Having attended the Facilities Meeting, I took that to mean that their recommendation would be discussed at the next regular School Board meeting (tonight). I presumed that the Facilities Committee would first make the recommendation; but then it would be up to the full School Board to ‘act’ on that recommendation.

However, at the same time that the Facilities Meeting was going on, a draft tennis court agreement was sent from the District to the Township. We learned of that proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, April 15 from chair Michelle Kichline. Kichline, with concurrence from Township Solicitor Vince Donohue, suggested legal problems with the proposal … specifically, that the District was asking for stormwater relief from the Township, in exchange for the tennis courts. After all the discussion that has taken place on this topic, it is impossible to understand why the School Board cannot accept that a stormwater-tennis court trade is not legally possible. Why would the School District submit such a proporal to the township that included storm water relief? We were led to believe at the Facilities Committee meeting, that the school district was interested in a reasonable settlement of the tennis courts situation. However, the proposed agreement suggests otherwise. Who wrote this draft agreement … the School District Solicitor Ken Roos?

Beyond the legalities of the proposal, I am struggling to understand how this agreement was sent to the township before the School Board reviewed it. How could the School Board review the draft agreement before the Facilities Committee even sent them their recommendation? Did School Board president Kevin Buraks review the tennis court proposal and authorize its release to the Township? Doesn’t proper procedure count for anything? Where’s the sunshine?

The outcome from the Board of Supervisors meeting was the suggestion for the School District and Township solicitors to prepare the tennis court agreement. Donohue and Roos are left to ‘hash’ out the agreement between the two entities at the taxpayer’s expense. Neither TESD nor Tredyffrin Township can afford the legal expense that has now been created by this situation. With all the talks of cuts in the school district, threats of outsourcing, etc. where’s the fiscal responsibility?

But here we are with the tennis courts on tonight’s School Board agenda. The saga continues …

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters