Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

TESD Facilities Committee Looking at Revenue Sources and Maintenance/Storage Issues

April 16, 2011
11 Comments
Yesterday there was a TESD Facilities Committee meeting which Ray Clarke attended and graciously supplied notes. I was particularly interested in the fee structure for use of school district facilities and here is related rental information:
  • Regulation 7040 – Details for the use of TESD facilities and description of the tiered levels of rental fees (Oct. 2010)
  • Fee Schedule for TESD facilities usage – Pages 10-15.
I found district fee schedule for school district facilities usage very difficult to figure out. I often have reason to look for various township locations for lectures for the Trust (Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust) so I looked at the fee schedule to check the rental fee for the high school auditorium. I think I figured out that as a nonprofit township organization, the fee would fall in the ‘C’ category of fees but beyond that I was lost — would I pay additional fee(s) for custodian and if so, was that charge for the entire event by the hour or was it for clean-up. Was the requirement for 1 person or multiple people? Would I pay additional for use of bathroom facilities for the length of the event?
It seems to me if the district is looking to increase rental usage of the facilities rental, perhaps the fee structure could be more ‘user-friendly’. I understand that the school district rentals may be different from other non-school district rentals but. . . how about a flat fee for ‘x’ hours of usage that would include custodian and bathroom facilities, rather than the renter struggling to do all the necessary ‘add-ons’. Example: Conestoga HS auditorium rental for up to 3 hours, Mon – Thurs could be listed as ‘x’ fee. The fee should be inclusive and include all required labor fees, use of bathrooms, etc. — streamline the pricing so it is obvious the total cost is obvious.
In my review of the current facilities fee structure, I would not be able to fill out the application form and know the total charge without speaking to someone at the school. At this point, I would not be able to determine if the rental fees are too ‘high’ or too ‘low’ as compared to other outside rental options; there are too many variables and possible add-ons to the base hourly rate. This comment is not intended as a criticism’ just a suggestion to perhaps review and simplify the fee schedule to make it more user-friendly and therefore, more like for people to rent the facilities.
——————————————————
Ray Clark’s Notes from 4/15 Facilities Committee Meeting:
The Facilities Committee held another 3 hour plus marathon on Friday. A couple of noteworthy items, the last two with implications for the operating and capital budgets.
  1. Kudos to Chuck Marshall and the Valley Creek Trustee Council for their work to protect the “Exceptional Value” Valley Creek and its tributaries like Crabby Creek. I came in on the end of a discussion about installing a vegetated swale and drainage system to control the run off from the CHS fields off Irish Road. The Council would fund the project as a gift to the School District. Importantly, there is also a commitment to maintain the system until the desired natural vegetation becomes established. With assurances about the impact to the district, the Committee recommended that the project be accepted.
  2. More to and fro about facility rental fees and priorities, but frustratingly nothing concrete emerging yet. There is a recognition that the end of the property bubble requires new revenue sources, and thus the need to revisit policies that subsidize groups like scouts and TEYSA, that charge others below market rates, that are set by the day not the hour, and that restrict the use of Teamer Field based on limitations of the old grass field. I think that Betsy Fadem has taken responsibility for coming up with draft revisions to policy and regulations that address these issues and ensure that neighbor concerns are incorporated. The plan is to have something fully in place for 2012, with changes to the Teamer Field use possibly sooner.
  3. Finally, the Committee has zeroed in on a plan to address the limited maintenance and storage space consequent on the demolition of the ESC. (Let’s not revisit that decision here now: water under the bridge!) Both people and inventory are dispersed all over the district: not the way we’d want to have our district supported, I think. Over many meetings, the Committee has pushed the administration and architect to come up with a cost conscious plan that fits into a long term vision for the district facilities. The recommendation is now a two phase project. First, add on to the current, but frail, maintenance building on Old Lancaster Road, then, second (as the adjacent property becomes available), expand the addition, convert the old building to parking and add a storage building. The capital commitment for Phase 1 would be $1.13 million. (Another $2 million would be required to complete the project, but would not be committed now). I was assured that the space requirements for all functions are fully supported by the cost and service benefits of having the functions in house. This will be discussed at the next School Board meeting on April 25th for those interested.

T/E School District Finance Meeting Updates . . . 2011-12 School District Budget Problem is the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’

April 12, 2011
24 Comments

Last night was the Finance Committee meeting and continued the discussion from the Budget Workshop held last month. The administration and the school board members focused on the budget strategies available to fill the remaining $3.3 million shortfall.

If you recall, originally the remaining school district 2011-12 budget deficit was $2 million. However, because of Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget and cuts to public education, an additional $1.3 million in state funding was lost to the district and therefore was added back into the TESD budget shortfall.

How to fund the $3.3 million deficit was the focus of the Finance Committee meeting. Members of the Finance Committee support and encourage a pay waiver freeze for next year. Hoping for an understanding of shared sacrifice, the school board recently mailed letters to TEEA and TENIG unions seeking their support.

Outsourcing of custodial services remains an open issue for further discussion; it appears that the updated cost-savings on out-sourcing of those services is approximately $800K annually. There was discussion of pay-to-play or ‘activities fee’ to be charged to students playing sports. This would be a yearly fee for student athletics, regardless if they played 1 or more sports. If a $50 fee per student athlete is charged, the revenue generated is approximately $80K. In reviewing other area school districts, five districts in Chester County have some type of sports activities fee in place. How much is the school district budget for sports? $1.5 million annually; which breaks down to approximately $509 per student who plays sports (including club sports).

Here is an open question . . . does sports activities fee impact participation. The discussion of an activities fee for sports brought up an interesting discussion. Is it fair to only charge for sports, what about other extra-curricular activities, clubs, band, etc.? Some members of the Finance Committee suggested that the activities fee should be associated with those extra-curricular activities that required transportation.

Another way to generate revenue for the school district is advertising and members of the Finance Committee are investigating the concept of paid advertising on Teamer Field, as well as other locations. Two adverting companies that handle this type of school district advertising will make a presentation at the next school board meeting. Generated revenue from this type of advertising was estimated as $30K-95K. Advertising on the sports team shirts was also discussed, as well as school bus advertising. If the district decides to move forward with the adverting concept, there will need to be a policy change.

FLITE is working to raise $85K to fund the after-school homework club. The homework program is included in the 2011-12 budget but is on the list as a possible budget expense reduction. Another expense reduction item under consideration is transportation for some extra-curricular activities ($90K) and summer school ($40K).

Several parents spoke in support of maintaining the quality of education and programming in the district. Many suggested raising property taxes or instituting an EIT to cover the school district budget deficit. If instituted, an 1% EIT would generate approximately $17 million annually. With the township and school district equally sharing those funds, $8.5 million would go to each.

The argument by some in support of an EIT or property tax increase was that your property values are directly tied to the quality of the school district. Therefore, if you want to sustain your property values, you must support the quality of the school district.

What was clear from the Finance Committee meeting is that the administration and school board are running out of options! They encouraged those in the audience and watching from home to contact your state representatives and Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania Primary, May 17, 2011 – Community Matters Schedule for Candidate’s Resumes

April 11, 2011
2 Comments

In advance of the Pennsylvania May Primary on Tuesday, May 17, last month I contacted chairs of the local political parties — Mike Broadhurst, TTRC and Dariel Jamieson, TTDEMS. I requested (and received) the resumes of candidates for the TESD School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, Chester County Magisterial District Judge and Board of Supervisors Special Election.

Providing a discussion forum on Community Matters as I did for the Tredyffrin Township interim supervisor’s appointment process in February, I will provide the Republican and Democratic candidate resumes for each of the May Primary races. Using the following schedule, I hope that by providing in-depth information on the candidates, will encourage a greater voter turnout for the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday, May 17.

  • Monday, April 25: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor Candidates
  • Monday, May 2: Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates
  • Monday, May 9: Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01 Candidates
  • Wednesday, May 11: Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Special Election Candidates
  • Tuesday, May 17: Pennsylvania Primary

All candidates in the May 17, 2011 Primary

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates:

  • Region 1: James Bruce (R) **
  • Region 1: Tara G. LaFiura (R)
  • Region 1: Karen Cruickshank (D) **
  • Region 1: Jerry Henige (D)
  • Region 2: Kristine Graham (R)
  • Region 2: Elizabeth Mercogliano (R)
  • Region 2: Scott Dorsey (D)
  • Region 2: Jenny Wessels (D)
  • Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel (R) **
  • Easttown, Region 3: Craig Lewis (D)

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Candidates:

  • At Large: Michael Heaberg (R) **
  • At Large: Kristen Kirk Mayock (R)
  • At Large: Molly Duffy (D)
  • At Large: Ernani (Ernie) Falcone (D)
  • District 1 East: Paul Olson (R) **
  • District 1 East: Victoria (Tory) Snyder (D)
  • District 3 West: John DiBuonaventuro (R) **
  • District 3 West: No Candidate (D)

Chester County Magisterial District Judge, District Court 15-4-01

  • Jeremy Blackburn (R) **
  • Analisa Sondergaard (D)

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Special Election Candidates:

  • Michael Heaberg (R) **
  • Molly Duffy (D)

** Incumbent

Sidewalks on Tredyffrin’s Supervisors Meeting Agenda: Translation . . . Does St. Davids Golf Club Build its Sidewalks?

April 4, 2011
Comments

The agenda for tonight’s supervisors meeting in Tredyffrin will include a presentation by PennDOT and the PA Turnpike regarding the start of 202 construction and the Rt. 29 slip ramp construction. The slip ramp construction got underway last week so I look forward to a review of the time for that project and for 202.

The agenda lists the scheduling of two public hearings, (1) an ordinance to create new regulations for historic preservation and (2) to consider amendments to sidewalk requirements in subdivision and land development plans.

Members of the township HARB and Planning Commission have worked on creating an ordinance to protect historic properties in the township for two years. In reviewing my HARB minutes, there was discussion as early as March 2009 recognizing the need. Much discussion and many joint meetings has taken place between HARB, Planning Commission and township staff. I am thrilled to see the work of many community volunteers now move forward.

Scheduling of the other public hearing – amendments to sidewalk ordinance. It’s fascinating that 16 months post-BAWG report and St. Davids Golf Club, the mention of sidewalks in Tredyffrin reminds us of the open St. Davids sidewalk issue. Recalling the history, the land development agreement between St. Davids Golf Club and the township requires the building of sidewalks. Rather than enforce the land development requirement, the supervisors decided last year to create a sidewalk subcommittee to examine the needs and interest in sidewalks in Tredyffrin.

Fast forward to April 2011 and where does the township stand on sidewalks and the open issues surrounding the land development agreement with St. Davids Golf Club to build sidewalks? Last month, the sidewalk subcommittee presented their results, which included an overwhelming resident interest in sidewalks, trails and bike paths in the township. The sidewalks subcommittee confirmed the Green Routes Network plan included sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. The results of last month’s public hearing to consider changing final land development authority from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors included a supervisors vote for the Planning Commission to retain this authority. So where does the township stand on St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk requirement? What really has changed in the last 16 months?

This morning, I was copied on a public email from John Petersen to township solicitor Tom Hogan (which also copied the Board of Supervisors and Mimi Gleason) inquiring on the “status of St. Davids”. Petersen’s email included the following:

“ . . . St. David’s has always had the obligation to build the sidewalks. At best, over the past year, there has been a forbearance on that obligation. It would appear that the status quo is firmly in place. By that, I mean that the sidewalk plan as promulgated in the master plan is still in effect. Second, the PC [Planning Commission] has retained full land development authority. That said, the St. David’s obligation was always in place. i.e., it was pre-existing contract. Therefore, no matter what was done on a prospective basis, it would have no effect on the St. David’s obligation. The same conclusion would have applied a year ago. . . St. David’s has two choices. 1 – build the sidewalks per their land development obligation. 2 – pay the township the full cost to build the sidewalks as per the land development obligation . . . So again I ask, what is the BOS going to do?”

I am curious to see if the elephant in the room (St. Davids land development agreement) is discussed at the supervisors meeting tonight. As much as some people would like the sidewalk issue at St. Davids Golf to just ‘go away’, unless there is a decision, the issue remains open. Will our elected officials enforce the land development agreement with St. Davids and require the sidewalks to be built . . . ? As Petersen says, “. . . What is the BOS going to do?”

The community needs closure on the St. Davids sidewalk issue; will that happen at tonight’s supervisors meeting? Stay tuned.

Dry Weather Forecast for Open Land Conservancy’s Vine Day Tomorrow, Saturday 2 . . . Last Vine Day of the Season, Can you Spare a Couple of Hours?

April 1, 2011
Comments

Has this winter left you suffering from cabin fever and a need to get outside for some fresh air? There’s a perfect opportunity tomorrow, Saturday, April 2 to help the community and celebrate the end of winter!

The Open Land Conservancy of Chester County will be holding its last Vine Day of the season on Saturday at George Lorimer Preserve, 9 AM – 12 Noon. Vines will be cut back so you will need to wear appropriate gloves and protective clothing. Volunteers are asked to bring tools if they have them — prunners, saws, clippers. But not to worry, the volunteers from Open Land Conservancy will have extra tools.

Lorimer Preserve is 88 acres of meadows, woods, ponds, stream, and extensive trail system are managed to provide a variety of habitats for wildlife in a beautiful rural setting.

Directions: head north on North Valley Road across Valley Creek, to entrance and parking lot on right. For further information on Vine Day and Open Land Conservancy, click here. Any questions, contact Ray Clarke at 610-578-0358.

Looking at this photo from the last Vine Day of Harold Sheinbach and Mac Wilson, it is obvious that these vines could use some attention! You can make a difference with a couple of hours of your time tomorrow. . . it’s the last Vine Day of the season.

Former Employee Files $2.1 Million Civil Lawsuit against Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, claiming Defamation of Character & Gross Negligence . . . has the statute of limitations run out?

March 25, 2011
7 Comments

This week former Assistant Finance Director for Tredyffrin Township (2000-03) John Yeager filed a $2.1 million civil lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township. The lawsuit was filed on Monday, March 21, 2011 at the Chester County Court of Pleas. To read the 5-page legal document, click here – provides for an interesting walk down memory lane. (If you click on the link to the lawsuit, when the box opens up, click on the link in the top of the box and the document will open).

In his lawsuit, John Yeager is claiming defamation of character and gross negligence charges against Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors in regards to his hiring (and ultimate firing) by Harry Marrone, the municipality’s former Finance Director.

Talk about a name from the past – Harry Marrone! Anyone remember Tredyffrin’s Finance Director pre-Dave Brill . . . Harry Marrone.

Here is a brief history lesson on Harry Marrone. Harry Marrone was the township’s Finance Director, serving from 1992 – 2005. In February 2005, Marrone was arrested, charged and convicted of diverting $75K of township money to his personal bank account. (I believe that Marrone subsequently made full restitution to the township). Unbeknown to the township at the time of Marrone’s hiring in 1992, he was a convicted felon. It turns out that in 1996, while on a stated 5-month medical leave from his township job; Marrone was actually serving time at Minnesota Federal Prison for embezzling $843K from a former employer. You might wonder how was it possible that the township was unaware of Marrone’s criminal record at the time of his hiring in 1992.

At the time of Marrone’s hiring, the township did not have policy and procedures for background investigation for prospective employees in place. However, as a direct result of Marrone’s criminal action against the township, a policy for thorough background investigation of all employees was approved. A similar situation could not occur today as a result of these employment policy changes.

Fast forward to March 21, 2011; John Yeager has filed a lawsuit seeking $2.1 million in damages from Tredyffrin Township. Yeager is claiming that he would never have sought employment with Tredyffrin Township had he known that Marrone was a convicted felon. He believes that his inability to secure employment by other municipalities is due to his relationship with Marrone and the subsequent negative publicity of the case. He was the Assistant Finance Director and Marrone was the Finance Director during Yeager’s employment with the township.

Yeager believes that he has suffered defamation of character; claiming that by association with Tredyffrin Township and Marrone, his personal reputation has been harmed. In his lawsuit, Yeager accuses the township of gross negligence through their hiring of a convicted felon (Marrone) and by not having a background investigation required for all prospective employees.

I have done some research on the statute of limitations on this type of civil action. The critical aspect of filing a civil action rests with remaining in compliance with the state’s statute of limitations. This is important because once the statute of limitations expires, the deadline for filing a lawsuit has passed. I do not claim to be any legal wiz, but it appears that an individual does not have a lot of time to file a ‘defamation lawsuit’ in Pennsylvania. According to what I have read, Pennsylvania has a one-year statute of limitation for defamation lawsuits. Negligence lawsuits appear to have a two-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania.

If I understand the statute of limitations correctly on defamation and negligence counts, Yeager’s lawsuit is not valid in Pennsylvania. I have spoken to four attorneys in regards to Yeager’s lawsuit. Only one attorney suggested there may be substance if Yeager can prove there has been an ongoing inability for employment due to his association with the township; therefore extending the statute of limitations in this situation.

I have tried unsuccessfully to contact Yeager. I wanted to ask him ‘why’ he waited so long to file the lawsuit and curious as to what was the stated reason that he was fired. I was also curious about the $2.1 million lawsuit price tag . . . wonder where that number came from?

If nothing else, the contents of the lawsuit provide us a walk down memory lane in regards to Harry Marrone. My assumption is that the lawsuit will now pass to the hands of the township’s insurance company. It would be curious to know how many of these types of lawsuits are regularly filed against municipalities and/or their elected officials.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme