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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
4. 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.
5. 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.

US News & World Report ranks Conestoga HS #5 in Pennsylvania and #313 in the US. The annual rankings of the country’s best high schools are out this week from US News & World Report. The rankings offer a snapshot of a school’s performance based on test data from 21,000 public high schools which represented 49 states (Nebraska did not present enough data to be considered) and the District of Columbia. Conestoga High School received gold level standing, listing a distinctive ranking of 313 of all public schools in the country. In Pennsylvania, US News listed Conestoga as #5.

The news outlet’s formula for determining their list of best high schools is a combination of school performance on state proficiency tests and how well they prepare students for college. A review of the individual states, had California leading the nation in 2013 rankings of best high schools with nearly 28 percent of its eligible high school receiving gold or silver levels. Maryland came in second with 25 percent receiving top designations and Connecticut third at 18.9 percent. To be eligible for a state ranking, a school must be awarded a national gold or silver medal. Pennsylvania has 570 school districts and 687 public high schools. In Pennsylvania, 168 high schools qualified for ‘best high school’ ranking by US News & World Report with either gold, silver or bronze medals. Nationally 500 schools earned gold medals, 1,790 were awarded silver and 2,515 took home bronze medals. Magnet and charter schools, which accept a limited number of students through a lottery or application process, accounted for 145 of the top 500 schools.

Here are the top 10 public high schools for 2013 as listed by US News & World Report:

#1 Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia
#2 Lehigh Valley Academy Charter School, Bethlehem
#3 Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, Erie
#4 Wyomissing Area Jr-Sr High School, Wyomissing
#5 Conestoga High School, Berwyn
#6 Central High School, Philadelphia
#7 Upper St. Clair High School, Pittsburgh
#8 Radnor High School
#9 Lower Moreland High School, Huntingdon Valley
#10 Unionville High School, Kennett Square

Last year on Community Matters, I provided the top 10 high schools in Pennsylvania for 2012, listed below:

:#1 Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia
#2 Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, Erie
#3 Conestoga High School, Berwyn
#4 Unionville High School, Kennett Square
#5 Wyomissing Area Jr-Sr High School, Wyomissing
#6 Radnor High School, Radnor
#7 New Hope-Solebury High School, New Hope
#8 Mt. Lebanon High School, Pittsburgh
#9 Upper St. Clair High School, Pittsburgh
#10 Central High School, Philadelphia

In reviewing the Pennsylvania ‘best high schools’, it is interesting to note that Conestoga High School as well as Radnor and Unionville high school dropped slightly in the US News rankings (Conestoga from #3 to #5, Radnor from #6 to #8 and Unionville from #4 to #10) yet Masterman, a magnet school in Philadelphia retained first place. Charter school Lehigh Valley Academy in Bethlehem did not make the 2012 top 10 best high schools but is #2 in the state on the 2013 list.  US News & World Report ranked Great Valley High School as #12 in 2012 but for 2013 the school has dropped to #21. Although Phoenixville High School was ranked as #25 in 2012, the school did not qualify for the 2013 rankings.

Last night’s School Board agenda included the priority discussion of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts.  Much time was spent in reviewing the history of the tennis courts, the parking study and additional parking requirements, the District’s timeline, etc.

After much discussion from School Board members and residents, the Board voted to seek a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board.  The application for the next Zoning Hearing Board meeting on Thursday, May 23 is due by May 1.  Why is a variance needed to keep the tennis courts … The combined impervious coverage of the additional parking spaces and the tennis courts is slightly more than the township stormwater ordinance permits.  If I understood the plan correctly last night, the District’s application to the ZHB will seek a variance for this additional impervious coverage.

The decision as to whether the tennis courts ‘stay or go’ is contingent on the ZHB ruling.  If the ZHB denies the variance to the District, the VFES tennis courts will be demolished.   If the ZHB grants the variance to the District, my impression from the discussion was that it still is not a definite that the courts will be saved.   Several Board members voiced concern that there could be unknown additional costs to saving the courts.  The solicitor Ken Roos was careful to include wording in the motion to include an ‘out’, if it turns out there are other costs to saving the courts.  According to Facilities chair Pete Motel, some of the costs to save the tennis courts are known.  (1) because of the existing contract; the District will pay $14K to the contractor not to demolish the tennis courts, (2) filing fee of $2K to the ZHB (although it was suggested that the Board of Supervisors may waive the fee if asked, and (3) the cost of District experts (solicitor, architect) to prepare the application and attend ZHB meeting.

Township manager Bill Martin commented that the township staff would be available to help the District with the application.  Both he and the District solicitor Ken Roos were clear that the township cannot control the outcome of the ZHB …  the Zoning Hearing Board is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions are not subject to the approval of the supervisors.

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 …

This is provided as a follow-up to last night’s presentation at the Planning Commission meeting  on the planned assisted living project at the Jimmy Duffy’s site.

The sketch plan for the new assisted living facility presented by Kelly Cook Andress, President of Sage Senior Living Development, had some notable changes from the original Capital Health plan of 2012.  Gerald Farrell of Capital Health, developer Ed Morris and their attorney Denise Yarnoff attended numerous Planning Commission meetings and community meetings with neighbors and concerned citizens during 2012.  These meetings were the precursor to the township changing CI zoning to permit assisted living as a usage.

Up until the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was released, we assumed that Capital Health was the owner.  There was no reference last night as to when Sage Senior Living came into the picture or why Capital Health was no longer involved.  However, Denise Yarnoff and Ed Morris do remain as the attorney and developer, respectfully, working now with Andress on the Sage project.

Although the information was not provided at the meeting, according to Caroline O’Halloran’s  Main Line Media News article, Eagle National Bank sold the property to Capital Health on March 29, 2013 for $2.25 million and then immediately ‘flipped’  the property to Sage Senior Living sometime in the last 3 weeks.

When originally presented to residents by Ed Morris in early 2011, the proposed project was described as a ‘retirement’ facility for seniors … a place for local residents to downsize from their large homes but remain in Tredyffrin Township.  I recall Morris initially suggested that many of the residents would have their own cars and be driving in the community.  As the project moved forward, Morris backed off the idea that most of the residents at the facility would be driving — he probably realized that by promoting that residents would be driving also meant they would have cars; and cars would mean greater parking requirements on the site.

Last night, Andress painted a very different picture of the project, stating that the average age of people moving in to the proposed assisted living facility would be 86 years, not the ‘empty nesters’ of the earlier plan.  She spoke of her Towson, MD facility, similar in size to the 78-80 units planned for the Duffy site.  At her Towson facility, only 2 of the residents still have drivers licenses and only one of them has a car.  Andress used the rationale of so few drivers as the reason that Sage Senior Living would not need the required parking.  She spoke of the stricter

How many parking spaces does Andress need for her Sage Senior Living project?  Here’s the applicable township zoning regulation:

§208-103 Off-Street Parking

(23) Residential care facilities for older persons and skilled nursing facilities: one parking space per two permanent beds approved unless otherwise a greater number is determined by the Zoning Officer after taking into consideration the number of units, occupancy per unit and number of employees.

Looking at Andress’ plan for 78-80 units (and assuming only one bed per unit) at a minimum, this assisted living facility requires 39-40 parking spaces.  The C1 zoning for assisted living permits a facility to have 100 beds, which would require a minimum of 50 parking spaces.  Although the adjacent VetCare has parking, those parking spaces cannot be included in the development project. The sketch plan indicated 37 parking spaces, which falls short of the township required parking.

The earlier assisted living facility plan required the use of the R1 zoning parcel to meet the parking requirement.  Andress’ plan show

Several times during the Sage Senior Living presentation, Andress referred to sub-committee meetings with Planning Commissioners.  It was unclear from the meeting which commissioners were part of this sub-committee although Commissioner Tory Snyder referenced these prior discussions in her comments to the applicant. As an audience member,  it was very confusing to follow the references to these non-public meetings.

Due to weather, Daylesford Neighborhood Association President Trisha Larkin was delayed in Chicago and unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting.  Trish provided the following statement to Community Matters:

Unfortunately my flight was delayed yesterday and I couldn’t attend the meeting.  However, I was briefed by several residents and here are our top concerns:

1. When C-1 zoning was changed last Fall to include ALF use, it was all predicated on the OLD owner’s vision and site plan.  Last night, the new owner (Sage) proposed a much different vision and perhaps a more “institutional” use than what was approved for Capital Health by the BoS.  The “lock-down/underground” dementia/Alzheimer’s Unit that Sage has in mind leaves us questioning if the PA Code allows for such use in C-1?  It seems that more discovery should take place to determine if such use is permitted in C-1.

2. § 208-103 Off-Street Parking Facilities.  Perhaps Sage is under the impression that supplying enough parking in the C-1 space is optional vs. mandatory.  Tredyffrin Township Zoning Code 208-103 states they must provide 1 parking space per 2 permanent beds.   This has been the DNA’s point for over a year - the Duffy space is entirely too small for this project.

If Sage chooses to put that many beds (78 – 100) on 1 acre, then they MUST provide a minimum of 39 parking spaces.  It’s irrelevant if the average resident is 86 and doesn’t drive.  Zoning laws are zoning laws! Tredyffrin already did Ed Morris a solid and changed C-1 zoning for this project.  Now what?  The PC, BoS and Zoning Health Board should just whimsically reduce the # of parking spaces required too?   Seriously?  You can’t have it both ways!  39 spaces are needed to safely accommodate employees, visitors, residents, deliveries, physicians stopping in to provide care, rehab nurses, etc.

It’s my understanding that Dr. Rowan of Paoli Vet Care was adamant at the PC meeting that he doesn’t intend to “share” his allotted 15 spaces with Sage.  Therefore, Sage should not include those spots in their June site plan.

So, the DNA asks (again) – HOW can Sage build the facility, the parking, picnic areas, etc. all on ONE acre of C-1 space?

Easy – they’ll ask the PC and BoS to ”borrow” from the one acre of R-1!  Although the current sketch plan showed the R-1 parcel as “green” space, the DNA is very concerned Sage intends to use the R-1 space as “overflow parking” down the line.  The PC, BoS and ZHB cannot allow any more concessions for this project!  R-1 is a precious commodity and it needs to be protected!  The DNA must be assured that the green space (R-1) must never be used for anything other than green space!

Perhaps THIS is why ALF’s should have a have a 3 – 5 acre minimum requirement??  Try as you may…you JUST can’t stuff a Size 10 foot into a Size 5 shoe!!

3.  “Secret” Meetings:  It’s very concerning that a few PC members admitted that discussions took place at Sub-Committee meetings.  News to the DNA!  We’ve never been invited to any such meetings, nor did we know any such meetings occurred.  Since we are the folks that are most directly impacted by this project – (yet again) WHY are we not included in the process?  Frankly, it’s insulting.  It seems that the builder, the ALF owner, and a few township officials are involved in Sub-Committee (secret) meetings, but the residents are left out time and again.  Very sad.

The DNA plans to stay actively involved in the Site Plan process.  We respectfully request that the Township make no further concessions for this project.  If Sage is compelled to build such a massive project, perhaps they can look to larger parcels that would more appropriately accommodate such an ambitious project.

Thank you,
Trisha Larkin
DNA President

————————————————————————————————————-

Addendum to this article:
As part of her presentation to the Planning Commission, Sage Senior Living Development President Andress described her other two assisted living facilities, one in Towson, MD and the other in Wallingford, PA – Plush Mills.  Because Plush Mills is close, I was interested to learn more about that facility and its management.  Plush Mills is a 7-story high-rise building in Delaware County and would have the same oversight by PA Department of Public Welfare as the proposed Paoli facility.

Researching Plush Mills online, I found violation reports from PA Department of Public Welfare stemming from annual state inspections.  Annual inspections are required for assisted living facilities in Pennsylvania.  All violations specified on the violation report must be corrected by a specified date and continued compliance must be maintained.

Some of the Plush Mills violations are as mundane as missing trash can lids to more serious issues including employees not receiving required Federal criminal background checks within required 80 days of hiring and discontinued patient medicine not properly destroyed.

Below are the links to complete PA Department of Public Welfare violation reports for Plush Mills:

• October 12, 2012, 16 pages
• Dec. 14, 2011, 25 pages
• July 12, 2010, 7 pages 
• July 9, 2009, 21 pages   

Looks like the old Jimmy Duffy catering site may soon to have a new name … ‘Sage Senior Living Development’.

For months leading up to September 2012, there was an urgency to pass the new C1 zoning ordinance to permit assistant living facilities (ALF).  The driver behind this zoning change was Capital Health and developer Ed Morris with plans to build an ALF on the former Jimmy Duffy’s Catering site on Lancaster Ave in Daylesford. During that period there was much discussion and debate with township supervisors, planning commissioners, township manager and residents regarding the C1/R1 site and its suitability as the future home of an assisted living facility.

On September 18, I wrote “Community Matters: Your Voice Matters … Except when it comes to C-1 Zoning Change” discussing the ordinance change and what I viewed as a flawed township process. Here is an excerpt from that post …

I thank all the citizens who took 4-1/2 hours of their time on Monday night to show support and to have their voices heard on the C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living usage. Tredyffrin residents spoke out from across the township, Paoli, Berwyn, Strafford, Wayne, etc. not just the Daylesford neighbors.  Hours of public testimony and not a single resident voiced support for the proposed C-1 zoning change. Citizens stated opposition for a host of reasons … flawed process, spot zoning, preferential treatment to a developer, should be a conditional use not a by-right use, bed density, safety concerns for patients, increased demand on township’s emergency services, etc. — the list went on and on.

Given the urgency in pushing the C1 zoning change through the system, it has been very surprising that the developer and his plans have been MIA for the last seven months.  If you recall, one of the rationales from the Planning Commission in regards to the C1 zoning change, was the fear that the township might lose Morris’ development plan if they took too long in changing the zoning.  Touting economic development for the community, there was a concern among some of the planning commissioners that we might lose this opportunity if the township didn’t move swiftly to permit ALF as a permitted use in C1.

So … on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda is the following:

06-2013; Sage Senior Living Development: Sketch Plan Application for an assisting living facility in C1/R1 Districts (parcels 43-10J-127/43-10J-128.1). Action: Discussion and input by the Planning Commission to the applicant for conceptual site plan prepared by Momenee & Associates, Inc., dated 4/4/2013.

The Jimmy Duffy site is comprised two parcels, zoned C1 and R1  … for Ed Morris to make his proposed ALF project work he needs use of the R1 for parking.  The Sage Senior Living Development project hinges on whether the R1 parcel is ‘legally’ abandoned. Last year, Tredyffrin’s solicitor Vince Donohue provided an opinion letter in regards to the grandfathering usage of parking on the 1-acre R1 parcel.  Although the Jimmy Duffy property has remained abandoned for several years, Donahue was of the opinion that the nonconforming use of parking remains available to the owner.

At least one other attorney did not share Donahue’s legal opinion that the nonconforming use of parking in the R1 parcel can continue.  In a July 20, 2012 Community Matters article, “Tredyffrin’s Proposed C1 Zoning Amendment Change … Where do we go from here?” attorney John Petersen offered his opinion,

Perhaps the bigger issue is the R1 parking and whether it is grandfathered. There are four reasons why Vince Donahue’s analysis in his opinion letter is flawed:

1. There has been a change in ownership
2. The catering business ceased at least 3-5 years ago
3. Mr. Donahue’s analysis leaves it to a reasonableness standard
4. Donahue cites fact in support of his conclusion as opposed to case law

The conclusion in Mr. Donahue’s opinion is that the zoning officer “Could not reasonably conclude that the use has lapsed.” In fact, I just gave a number of reasons why Matt Baumann, our zoning officer, could reasonably conclude that the use did lapse. In fact – I’d say that based on these facts – Baumann couldn’t reasonably conclude the use didn’t lapse. If the township tries to grandfather this use, that itself could be a prima facie case of contract zoning – which is always construed to be spot zoning.  Ironically, where the PC and at least some on the BOS thought they were helping this project along, they actually did more to harm it by not following sound process and procedure.

Whether or not the grandfathering of the R1 parking is permitted is the key to the Sage Senior Living Development project.  For the project to move forward with the Planning Commissioners will require a resolution.  The Planning Commission is 7 PM tonight at the Township Building.

Some residents, including myself, have been wondering when the township was going to hire the additional police officers listed in the 2013 budget.  Last year’s $49K police operations study by ICMA  fueled some ongoing debate as to how many police officers were needed.  According to the consultants, their study recommended 43-46 officers with a minimum of 43 officers required to maintain the existing level of safety.  If you recall, Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo requested 47 officers at the December 3 supervisors meeting and asked the Board to consider reinstating the 47 officers in the 2013 budget.  However, the 2013 township budget was approved with 43 officers. (Three years ago, Tredyffrin Township had 51 police officers on the books.)

In late December 2012, the Act III arbitration award was issued for the collective bargaining agreement between the township and the police union.  Based on the arbitration award, the police department retained most of their prior contract benefits. I incorrectly assumed that the arbitration award settled the matter and that the hiring of additional police officers would be immediate.  However, we learned that there remained open issues related to the police health care plan requiring resolution.  However, last month the outstanding health insurance questions were resolved and the township and the police union signed the agreement.

With no further roadblock to hiring new police officers, there’s great news that the agenda for Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting includes, “A motion to approve the hiring of additional police officers”.  At my last count, there were 39 township police officers, so it will be interesting to see how many are approved tomorrow night.

At today’s Facilities Committee meeting, chair Pete Motel and the other 3 School Board committee members, Jim Bruce, Betsy Fadem and Liz Mercogliano made a 180 degree turn from their former position of demolishing the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.  With a unanimous vote from the Facilities Committee, they will send their recommendation to preserve to the tennis courts to the School Board.  Motel explained that their recommendation will include the caveat of a new signed agreement between the District and Tredyffrin Township.  The new agreement will be an update to the original 1974 agreement.

Attending the Facilities Committee meeting, Tredyffrin Township supervisor Phil Donahue spoke of support for the District’s decision to save the tennis courts.  He suggested a willingness on the part of the township, to work together with the District for a new agreement and that if it was ready by Monday, it would be presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Although Motel mentioned there were “sticky wickets” yet to be worked out re an agreement, I think most of us in the audience were satisfied that the tennis courts will be preserved.  The padlocks have been removed and the tennis courts are again available for use. The parking lot expansion plan to add 24 parking spaces will continue this summer (without the demolition of the tennis courts).

Saving the tennis courts from demolition just goes to show what can happen when a few determined people come together for a common cause.  Voices do matter … and in this case, it saved the tennis courts.

The saga of the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School continues.  On April 2, representatives from the School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, staff and the District’s architect held a public meeting to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

Although there was support to save the tennis courts from those residents in attendance, no decision was made at the meeting. The tennis courts are on the Facilities Committee agenda for tomorrow (Friday), 2 PM at the TESD Administration Building.  Also included in the agenda packet  is the site map for the parking lot expansion and aerial view of the courts.

I remain confused as to why the District wants to demolish the tennis courts.  From a logical standpoint, some of the arguments simply do not make sense to me.

•  The tennis courts are not located adjacent to the parking lot and their location does not affect the parking lot expansion plans.  To add the 24 parking spaces does not require the demolition of the 2 tennis courts.

• There has been much back and forth between the School District business manager Art McDonnell and the Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo in regards to “trading” impervious surface requirement of the parking lot expansion by demolishing the courts.  McDonnell claims that there was a prior agreement with former Township Manager Mimi Gleason in regards to this arrangement;  Martin and Burgo claim otherwise. 

• In an email to Bill Martin and Art McDonnell (cc Phil Donohue) dated March 20, Burgo states the following: 

Township staff including the previous Manager (Ms. Gleason), Engineer (Mr. Burgo), and (Mrs. McPherson), attended meetings with Art McDonnell and TESD consultant staff on these Tennis Courts more than a year ago.  In those meetings, the TESD discussed their plans to add a new parking lot at the VFES in the future. I want to be clear that the TESD and their consultants originally asked if they could swap the impervious, but were told by the Township that they couldn’t.  Stormwater Management controls are required by the Township Stormwater Ordinance, for all new impervious being constructed onsite. There is no credit or swap if the courts are removed from a stormwater management standpoint, only from a zoning standpoint.

• On behalf of the District, Art McDonnell has publicly maintained that there was a ‘deal’ in regards to the impervious surface requirement. Yet as evidenced by Burgo’s email, the township has denied any such deal existed.  Further, to the point, such a deal would be illegal as the stormwater ordinance makes no provision for such a credit.  Therefore, we can only conclude that the School District represented by the business manager Art McDonnell has been less than truthful as to their rationale for demolishing the tennis courts.
• The construction of the additional parking spaces will require a zoning variance. According to VFES neighbor Matt Morgan, township officials indicated at the April 2 Facilities Committee meeting that they would expedite the process and probably waive the associated fees (if asked).

Besides the impervious surface debate, another rationale for the removal of the tennis courts from the District was their cost to maintain.  I have had a number of residents tell me that courts are in excellent condition – although I don’t claim any expertise on tennis courts, the 2 courts at VFES looked in good shape to me.

Another neighbor to the tennis courts, Don Detweiler, has been providing routine maintenance for a number of years.  Neither the School District nor the township has expended any dollars on the courts.  In an April 1 TE Patch article , local resident Jeff Sacks, a tennis coach, is quoted as offering to pay the maintenance cost.  According to Matt Morgan, a local Davis Cup tennis player who lives in the neighborhood and uses the courts, has offered to hold tennis clinics for children and donate the proceeds to maintain the courts.

Beyond the ‘he said, she said’ aspects of this story, that has me shaking my head is the notion that the tennis courts are going to cost money unless they are demolished.  According to the District, the cost to seek a variance from the township’s Zoning Hearing Board will be $12K – $14K; $2K in fees and the remainder in architectural fees.  However, the supervisors stated at the April 2 public meeting that they would probably waive the fees if asked.  And there would not be need for additional architectural services or drawings — the District could apply for a variance based on the current drawings.

Why is there such a rush to take down the tennis courts?  Why is the building of the 24 parking spaces contingent on the removal of the courts?  It has been verified that there was no such ‘deal’ exists to swap the tennis courts for impervious coverage requirement.  There should be a better reason to remove the tennis courts other than the courts are on District property and they School Board has the right to do what they want.  It’s true the courts are on District property but the District property is owned by the residents.

Tomorrow is the Facilities Committee meeting.  Representing the School Board on Facilities is Pete Motel, Jim Bruce and Liz Mercogliano.  According to a April 2 article in the  Main Line Media News, Mercogliano is siding with the residents and supports keeping the tennis courts.  From the article –

“There is no legitimate reason based on impervious surface, stormwater management, safety (or) sink holes to remove the court,” Mercogliano said in an e-mail. “The parking can be built in same area with no issue as there is more land space.

“The community deserves their right to be heard and look into other means of raising funds for maintenance and possible takeover of the court through the Parks and Recreation board or a similar foundation to raise funds. I am supporting a delay to allow the opportunity for the taxpayer to seek an alternative method to save the courts for the kids.

There will be a recommendation from the Facilities Committee tomorrow. If you are unable to attend the 2 PM meeting, you could send an email to the Board at:  schoolboard@tesd.net or to individual Board members. However, I emailed the School Board president Kevin Buraks 8 days ago (in regards to the tennis courts) and to date, have received no response or acknowledgement to my inquiry.

The saga of the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School continues.  On April 2, representatives from the School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, staff and the District’s architect held a public meeting to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

Although there was support to save the tennis courts from those residents in attendance, no decision was made at the meeting. The tennis courts are on the Facilities Committee agenda for tomorrow (Friday), 2 PM at the TESD Administration Building.  Also included in the agenda packet  is the site map for the parking lot expansion and aerial view of the courts.

I remain confused as to why the District wants to demolish the tennis courts.  From a logical standpoint, some of the arguments simply do not make sense to me.

•  The tennis courts are not located adjacent to the parking lot and their location does not affect the parking lot expansion plans.  To add the 24 parking spaces does not require the demolition of the 2 tennis courts.

• There has been much back and forth between the School District business manager Art McDonnell and the Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo in regards to “trading” impervious surface requirement of the parking lot expansion by demolishing the courts.  McDonnell claims that there was a prior agreement with former Township Manager Mimi Gleason in regards to this arrangement;  Martin and Burgo claim otherwise. 

• In an email to Bill Martin and Art McDonnell (cc Phil Donohue) dated March 20, Burgo states the following: 

Township staff including the previous Manager (Ms. Gleason), Engineer (Mr. Burgo), and (Mrs. McPherson), attended meetings with Art McDonnell and TESD consultant staff on these Tennis Courts more than a year ago.  In those meetings, the TESD discussed their plans to add a new parking lot at the VFES in the future. I want to be clear that the TESD and their consultants originally asked if they could swap the impervious, but were told by the Township that they couldn’t.  Stormwater Management controls are required by the Township Stormwater Ordinance, for all new impervious being constructed onsite. There is no credit or swap if the courts are removed from a stormwater management standpoint, only from a zoning standpoint.

• On behalf of the District, Art McDonnell has publicly maintained that there was a ‘deal’ in regards to the impervious surface requirement. Yet as evidenced by Burgo’s email, the township has denied any such deal existed.  Further, to the point, such a deal would be illegal as the stormwater ordinance makes no provision for such a credit.  Therefore, we can only conclude that the School District represented by the business manager Art McDonnell has been less than truthful as to their rationale for demolishing the tennis courts.
• The construction of the additional parking spaces will require a zoning variance. According to VFES neighbor Matt Morgan, township officials indicated at the April 2 Facilities Committee meeting that they would expedite the process and probably waive the associated fees (if asked).

Besides the impervious surface debate, another rationale for the removal of the tennis courts from the District was their cost to maintain.  I have had a number of residents tell me that courts are in excellent condition – although I don’t claim any expertise on tennis courts, the 2 courts at VFES looked in good shape to me.

Another neighbor to the tennis courts, Don Detweiler, has been providing routine maintenance for a number of years.  Neither the School District nor the township has expended any dollars on the courts.  In an April 1 TE Patch article , local resident Jeff Sacks, a tennis coach, is quoted as offering to pay the maintenance cost.  According to Matt Morgan, a local Davis Cup tennis player who lives in the neighborhood and uses the courts, has offered to hold tennis clinics for children and donate the proceeds to maintain the courts.

Beyond the ‘he said, she said’ aspects of this story, that has me shaking my head is the notion that the tennis courts are going to cost money unless they are demolished.  According to the District, the cost to seek a variance from the township’s Zoning Hearing Board will be $12K – $14K; $2K in fees and the remainder in architectural fees.  However, the supervisors stated at the April 2 public meeting that they would probably waive the fees if asked.  And there would not be need for additional architectural services or drawings — the District could apply for a variance based on the current drawings.

Why is there such a rush to take down the tennis courts?  Why is the building of the 24 parking spaces contingent on the removal of the courts?  It has been verified that there was no such ‘deal’ exists to swap the tennis courts for impervious coverage requirement.  There should be a better reason to remove the tennis courts other than the courts are on District property and they School Board has the right to do what they want.  It’s true the courts are on District property but the District property is owned by the residents.

Tomorrow is the Facilities Committee meeting.  Representing the School Board on Facilities is Pete Motel, Jim Bruce and Liz Mercogliano.  According to a April 2 article in the  Main Line Media News, Mercogliano is siding with the residents and supports keeping the tennis courts.  From the article –

“There is no legitimate reason based on impervious surface, stormwater management, safety (or) sink holes to remove the court,” Mercogliano said in an e-mail. “The parking can be built in same area with no issue as there is more land space.

“The community deserves their right to be heard and look into other means of raising funds for maintenance and possible takeover of the court through the Parks and Recreation board or a similar foundation to raise funds. I am supporting a delay to allow the opportunity for the taxpayer to seek an alternative method to save the courts for the kids.

There will be a recommendation from the Facilities Committee tomorrow. If you are unable to attend the 2 PM meeting, you could send an email to the Board at:  schoolboard@tesd.net or to individual Board members. However, I emailed the School Board president Kevin Buraks 8 days ago (in regards to the tennis courts) and to date, have received no response or acknowledgement to my inquiry.

The saga of the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School continues.  On April 2, representatives from the School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, staff and the District’s architect held a public meeting to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

Although there was support to save the tennis courts from those residents in attendance, no decision was made at the meeting. The tennis courts are on the Facilities Committee agenda for tomorrow (Friday), 2 PM at the TESD Administration Building.  Also included in the agenda packet  is the site map for the parking lot expansion and aerial view of the courts.

I remain confused as to why the District wants to demolish the tennis courts.  From a logical standpoint, some of the arguments simply do not make sense to me.

•  The tennis courts are not located adjacent to the parking lot and their location does not affect the parking lot expansion plans.  To add the 24 parking spaces does not require the demolition of the 2 tennis courts.

• There has been much back and forth between the School District business manager Art McDonnell and the Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo in regards to “trading” impervious surface requirement of the parking lot expansion by demolishing the courts.  McDonnell claims that there was a prior agreement with former Township Manager Mimi Gleason in regards to this arrangement;  Martin and Burgo claim otherwise. 

• In an email to Bill Martin and Art McDonnell (cc Phil Donohue) dated March 20, Burgo states the following: 

Township staff including the previous Manager (Ms. Gleason), Engineer (Mr. Burgo), and (Mrs. McPherson), attended meetings with Art McDonnell and TESD consultant staff on these Tennis Courts more than a year ago.  In those meetings, the TESD discussed their plans to add a new parking lot at the VFES in the future. I want to be clear that the TESD and their consultants originally asked if they could swap the impervious, but were told by the Township that they couldn’t.  Stormwater Management controls are required by the Township Stormwater Ordinance, for all new impervious being constructed onsite. There is no credit or swap if the courts are removed from a stormwater management standpoint, only from a zoning standpoint.

• On behalf of the District, Art McDonnell has publicly maintained that there was a ‘deal’ in regards to the impervious surface requirement. Yet as evidenced by Burgo’s email, the township has denied any such deal existed.  Further, to the point, such a deal would be illegal as the stormwater ordinance makes no provision for such a credit.  Therefore, we can only conclude that the School District represented by the business manager Art McDonnell has been less than truthful as to their rationale for demolishing the tennis courts.
• The construction of the additional parking spaces will require a zoning variance. According to VFES neighbor Matt Morgan, township officials indicated at the April 2 Facilities Committee meeting that they would expedite the process and probably waive the associated fees (if asked).

Besides the impervious surface debate, another rationale for the removal of the tennis courts from the District was their cost to maintain.  I have had a number of residents tell me that courts are in excellent condition – although I don’t claim any expertise on tennis courts, the 2 courts at VFES looked in good shape to me.

Another neighbor to the tennis courts, Don Detweiler, has been providing routine maintenance for a number of years.  Neither the School District nor the township has expended any dollars on the courts.  In an April 1 TE Patch article , local resident Jeff Sacks, a tennis coach, is quoted as offering to pay the maintenance cost.  According to Matt Morgan, a local Davis Cup tennis player who lives in the neighborhood and uses the courts, has offered to hold tennis clinics for children and donate the proceeds to maintain the courts.

Beyond the ‘he said, she said’ aspects of this story, that has me shaking my head is the notion that the tennis courts are going to cost money unless they are demolished.  According to the District, the cost to seek a variance from the township’s Zoning Hearing Board will be $12K – $14K; $2K in fees and the remainder in architectural fees.  However, the supervisors stated at the April 2 public meeting that they would probably waive the fees if asked.  And there would not be need for additional architectural services or drawings — the District could apply for a variance based on the current drawings.

Why is there such a rush to take down the tennis courts?  Why is the building of the 24 parking spaces contingent on the removal of the courts?  It has been verified that there was no such ‘deal’ exists to swap the tennis courts for impervious coverage requirement.  There should be a better reason to remove the tennis courts other than the courts are on District property and they School Board has the right to do what they want.  It’s true the courts are on District property but the District property is owned by the residents.

Tomorrow is the Facilities Committee meeting.  Representing the School Board on Facilities is Pete Motel, Jim Bruce and Liz Mercogliano.  According to a April 2 article in the  Main Line Media News, Mercogliano is siding with the residents and supports keeping the tennis courts.  From the article –

“There is no legitimate reason based on impervious surface, stormwater management, safety (or) sink holes to remove the court,” Mercogliano said in an e-mail. “The parking can be built in same area with no issue as there is more land space.

“The community deserves their right to be heard and look into other means of raising funds for maintenance and possible takeover of the court through the Parks and Recreation board or a similar foundation to raise funds. I am supporting a delay to allow the opportunity for the taxpayer to seek an alternative method to save the courts for the kids.

There will be a recommendation from the Facilities Committee tomorrow. If you are unable to attend the 2 PM meeting, you could send an email to the Board at:  schoolboard@tesd.net or to individual Board members. However, I emailed the School Board president Kevin Buraks 8 days ago (in regards to the tennis courts) and to date, have received no response or acknowledgement to my inquiry.

Today, when I visited Wegmans in Frazer, the Chester Valley Trail, located next to the parking lot, was filled with walkers, runners and bicyclists  The glorious Spring weather had people of all ages out enjoying the trail — so how appropriate that Open Land Conservancy will use the trail as the topic for the annual meeting tomorrow night.

What is the status on the trail through Tredyffrin?

In describing the Chester County Trail, Open Land Conservancy offered —  “It seems like it would be easy – lay down some tar on an old railroad right-of-way for a few miles, and you have a nice multi-use trail. The reality: it takes years – hundreds of hours spent by local and state government officials, a huge financial commitment, countless hours of volunteer work, and pledges for decades of on-going maintenance.”   According to the Chester County website, the Chester Valley Trail project dates back to 1991, when representatives of Chester County, Montgomery County and PennDOT envisioned a soon-to-be abandoned rail line as a major trail.

For their 74th annual meeting, Open Land Conservancy has invited Owen Prusack, Chester County Regional Park Superintendent and responsible for the Chester Valley Trail.  Prusack will explain the  many challenges and rewards associated with the creation and preservation of the Trail.  Also hear about future plans for the trail, connections to the local trail network, and the importance of trails such as those on our preserves in helping maintain a high quality of living.

The Open Land Conservancy annual meeting is open to the public and interested residents are encouraged to attend.   The meeting is Wednesday, April 10, 8 PM at the Great Valley Presbyterian Church, on Swedesford Road, north of Paoli.  Following the meeting, refreshments will be served.

Spring is PSSA time for public schools in Pennsylvania and the results are in for 2013. The Pittsburgh Business Times has published their 2013 Guide of Western Pennsylvania Schools, which lists the rankings of all  school districts in Pennsylvania.  The analysis of the school district performance is based on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) Exam results.  According to their website, the formula for the ranking takes into account three years of PSSA test scores in math, reading, writing and science.   They look at three years of scores, with the current year given the most weight. The rankings do not denote the overall quality and performance of the school district, only the PSSA scores.

In the ‘Top 15′ school districts category in Pennsylvania, Allegheny County was the number one county with six school districts represented followed by Chester County with three school districts (Unionville-Chadds Ford, T/E and Great Valley), Delaware County with three school districts (Radnor, Wallingford-Swarthmore and Rose Tree Media) and Montgomery County with one school district (Lower Merion).

For 2013 rankings, Upper St. Clair School Districts holds onto its first place title for the ninth year in a row, with another Allegheny County school district, Mt. Lebanon moving into second place.  This is the third year that I have tracked the top 15 school districts and in the chart below, you will note that Tredyffrin Easttown Township School District has dropped from its 2011 second place, to third place in 2012, to fourth place in 2013.  The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District dropped their ranking from second in 2012 to third in 2013. Other main line school districts, Radnor Township School District dropped from fourth to sixth for 2013,  Lower Merion dropped a level in rankings and Great Valley School District moved up from 14th to 13th place for 2013.  Looking at other area school districts, Downingtown School District improved their rankings, from 25th to 24th and Phoenixville School District continues to drop in rankings, for 2o13 listed as 98th.

A Pennsylvania school district that places in the top 15 or 20 out of 500 districts statewide based on the PSSA exams is an achievement for which  students, parents, teachers and administrators can all be proud.   PSSA scores is viewed by many as a reliable predictor of future success.  As a tool for student assessment, the PSSA exam helps measure and provide useful information of what students are learning. The PSSAs measure the performance of the entire class and provide of measurement of how an overall class is performing. But how important are PSSA exams, beyond bragging rights of a school district.  Do children (and teachers) need this level of pressure to ‘measure up’?

Based on the varying socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages levels of school districts across the state, I don’t know how fair it is judge the work of entire school districts based on a series of standardized tests.  Although evaluation  is an important tool in learning, high-stakes tests, such as the PSSA exam, are being used to label students (as well as teachers and school districts).  It is no wonder that there is rebellion among some parents not to allow their children to participate in the PSSA testing process.

I did not know that in Pennsylvania, a parent has the right to have their children exempted from taking the PSSA exams under PA Code Title 22 Chapter 4, Section 4 (d)(5):

“If upon inspection of State assessments parents or guardians find the assessment in conflict with their religious belief and wish their students to be excused from the assessment, the right of the parents or guardians will not be denied upon written request to the applicable school district superintendent, charter school chief executive officer or AVTS director.”

The grounds for the exemption are “religious” but the parents do not have to explain what their faith is, what about the testing is in violation of their faith, or anything else. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, if you believe that it is morally wrong to put your kids through the ordeal of a week of testing, that’s good enough.

Timothy Slekar, head of the Department of Education, Penn State-Altoona and his wife decided to opt out of the PSSA exam for their son.  Slekar included a copy of the letter in an article written for Huffington Post that can be used in Pennsylvania public schools by “people of most religious affiliations”.  Slekar encourages readers “to copy, to cut, and to paste any or all portions of this letter for your own use in freeing a child from the pain of high-stakes standardized testing.”  To read Slekar’s article and opt-out letter, click here.

Top 15 School Districts in Pennsylvania for 2013 2013      2012       2011                         School District (County) 1 1 1 Upper St. Clair School District (Allegheny) 2 5 6 Mt. Lebanon School District (Allegheny) 3 2 3 Unionville-Chadds Ford School District (Chester) 4 3 2 Tredyffrin-Easttown School District (Chester) 5 6 5 North Allegheny School District        (Allegheny) 6 4 4 Radnor Township School District (Delaware) 7 7 9 Hampton Township School District (Allegheny) 8 10 12 South Fayette Township School District (Allegheny) 9 8 7 Lower Merion School District (Montgomery) 10 9 8 Central Bucks School District (Bucks) 11 13 15 Wallingford-Swarthmore School District (Delaware) 12 12 11 Fox Chapel Area School District      (Allegheny) 13 14 13 Great Valley School District (Chester 14 11 11 Peters Township School District  (Washington) 15 19 19 Rose Tree Media School District (Delaware)

 

 

Tuesday night members of the TE School Board and TESD staff, Tredyffrin Township supervisors and staff met with residents to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

The courts are on District property and by a 1974 agreement were built and maintained by Tredyffrin Township and Parks and Recreation Board (click here for agreement).  The agreement allowed for termination, “if at any time the school district determines that the grounds selected for the construction and maintenance of the tennis courts are required for school building purposes.” By a letter dated May 31, 2012 from TESD business manager Art McDonnell to the township, the agreement was terminated because the “District has now determined that the grounds are required for school building purposes.  Specifically, the grounds will be used to add a parking area to the Valley Forge Elementary School.” (click here for McDonnell letter).

This is confusing because the tennis courts are behind the school and the parking area and the construction of the additional 24 parking spaces is in the front of the building.  Leading up to Tuesday’s meeting, there has been much debate centering around whether the removal of the tennis courts would alleviate stormwater and impervious surface requirements of the parking lot expansion.

Although the current township manager Bill Martin and township engineer Steve Burgo state that there was no ‘deal’ that the school district could trade stormwater requirements for the parking lot by removal of the tennis courts, the District has a different viewpoint. According to their presentation at the meeting, former township manager Mimi Gleason met with Tom Daley, the District architect and Art McDonnell, on May 3, 2012 to review the concept of trading the paving in parking lot for the tennis courts and that the concept was approved. McDonnell presents the meeting information and verbal approval from Gleason to the District Facilities Committee on May 11.  At that meeting Daley presented layout options and the preliminary budget was set at $230K.  It was at this point that McDonnell sent the letter to the township on May 31 (referenced above).

After testimony from many neighbors in support of the tennis courts, where does the project stand?  According to the District, JMC Contractors was awarded the contract for the project – their bid $224,743.  The cost to remove the tennis courts is $24K.

According to the District architect, Tom Daley, the costs for additional stormwater mitigation could be $1 Million without a variance if the tennis courts remain.  I have a hard time believing that the cost could be so high.

It was suggested that if the District could go to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance, but it is unclear to me on what grounds the approval could be granted.  For Zoning Hearing Board, it is my understanding that the District could bring the current drawings/plans without needing the expense of legal or architectural representation at the meeting – a savings of $10-12K.  It is also suggested that application fee of $2K could be waived by the Board of Supervisors. If the District wants to seek a variance, they will need to notify the township by Monday.  (There’s a legal requirement to notify publicly advertise two weeks in advance of ZHB meeting) Board member and District Facilities Committee member Betsy Fadem has stated that she wants this matter resolved by May 1.  The next Facilities Committee meeting is April 12 at 2 PM where the tennis court discussion will continue.

I’m not sure what is magical about May 1, except that the District has a time schedule for getting the parking lot construction done during the summer months when school is closed.

The District has a signed agreement with a contractor, so I am not sure how this is going to play out.  Will public pressure cause the District to backtrack and reverse course and save the tennis courts?  What are the implications if the District seeks a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board?  Although the suggestion is that getting a variance would not be challenging to the District, I was under the impression that there are specific guidelines under which variances are granted, such as economic hardship.

Tomorrow evening (Tuesday, 7:30 PM, TE School District Administrative office) at a special school board meeting, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to voice their opinion on the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts, and whether or not to demolish.  Tonight Finance Committee will meet at 7 PM, followed by the Budget Workshop II at 7:30 PM at the TE School District Administrative offices.  Click here for agenda.

The Budget Workshop II will continue the 2013-14 budget discussion, looking at expenditures and a projection model.  I wonder if T/E administrator supplemental retirement bonuses and the potential impact on the budget is part of the discussion. Short answer, I doubt it.  When the school board approved the ‘Administrator Compensation Plan’ which was buried in the January consent agenda, it was suggested that the process was “routine” and that any discussion on the bonus and compensation plan was to occur “after” the vote was taken.

Admittedly, in a budget the size of  T/E School District, the one-time bonuses paid to the administrators is probably not a big deal – looking at the list below of the administrators and their bonuses, which was included with the School Board’s January agenda materials, the total is around $180K.

Administrators, base salary and one-time bonus, effective July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013:

Adams $130,897 $2,200 Boyle $125,000 $2,087 Capuano $125,000 $2,028 Cataldi $144,000 $2,356 Chipego $163,500 $2,754 Cohle $147,719 $2,486 Demming $143,512 $2,414 Dinkins $152,940 $2,549 Fagan $125,000 $2,080 Gibson $144,000 $2,418 Groppe $125,732 $2,103 Gusick $152,000 $2,513 Hickey $115,481 $1,902 McConnell $176,823 $2,963 Meisinger $151,000 $2,520 Mull $117,283 $1,968 Parker $115,481 $1,849 Phillips $125,000 $2,001 Roy $125,327 $2,063 Tiede $173,070 $2,900 Tobin $155,091 $2,611 Torres $127,003 $2,134 Towle $132,409 $2,225 Whyte $146,676 $2,468 Wills $142,000 $2,190 McDonnell $156,309 $2,623

It is my opinion, that the recently approved compensation plan for the administrators contains something far more costly than $180K one-time bonus, and something that should have been publicly discussed – the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’.  The newly signed  Act 93 Agreement (the Administrator Compensation Plan) of January 29, 2013 to June 30, 2017 supersedes the prior plan that covered 13 years, July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2014.

When the previous administrator compensation plan was signed in 2001, TESD was not facing the dire economic situation and level of cost-cutting measures as is the case in 2013.  The District’s multi-million dollar deficit has required the Board to look at making difficult decisions to cut-costs, including outsourcing of support staff, possible demotion of teachers, increase class sizes, etc. We have seen educational programming affected by cost cutting measures — example, the ‘Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools’ (FLES) program is no longer offered nor Latin in the middle school.  For the 2013-14 school year, TESD will be the only school district in the state to institute teacher furloughs.  All of this to stave off the financial cliff that TESD, like every other school district in Pennsylvania, is facing.

For 13 years the T/E administration compensation plan included longevity incentive bonuses – a so-called ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ where administrators receive an additional bonus check when they retire, based on the years they have served as administrators in TESD.

For retiring TESD administrators, you apply the appropriate percentage from the schedule below to the final year’s base salary:

• at least 5 – but less than 10 years: 45%
• at least 10 – but less than 15 years: 60%
• at least 15 – but less than 20 years: 75%
• at least 20 – but less than 25 years: 90%
• 25 years or more: 100%

Considering that the former administrator compensation plan covered 13 years (2001-2014), a complete and thorough analysis of the entire agreement, including the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ would have been fiscally responsible.  It appears that those individuals affected by the administrator compensation plan are the ones that reviewed the plan and presented it to the Board.    The newly signed Administrator Compensation Plan is a 4-year plan covering January 29, 2013 – June 30, 2017.  This ‘routine’ consent agenda item contains the same language for the long-term one-time retirement bonus as was contained in the previous plan.

What exactly does the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ mean to the taxpayers of TESD?  In researching the 26 administrators named above, how many are in the category that could retire and receive this one-time payment?  The District has announced the retirement of Tom Tobin this year as Devon Elementary School principal.  If I understand the Retirement Supplement Pension correctly, with 21 years of service as a TESD administration, means that Tobin will receive a one-time payment equal to 90% of his $155K salary or approximately $139,500.

Here’s an interesting example of the Retirement Supplemental Pension … the director of Technology, Robin McConnell, currently has 39 years of service with the District. According to the compensation plan, McConnell will receive a retirement bonus equal to 100% of his salary or $176,823 upon retirement. Many of the 26 administrators have been with the District a long time, which means there could be a number of retirements before the expiration of the new administrator compensation plan in June 2017. It should be clear that the one-time payment of the Retirement Supplemental Pension is in addition to their regular pension.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know too many companies who pay longevity bonuses at this level anymore; unless perhaps you are president or CEO of the company.  It seems astounding to me that the School Board can be considering outsourcing of TENIG workers, going after nonprofit companies for property taxes and instituting teacher furloughs in 2013/14 yet no discussion of the removal of the Retirement Supplemental Pension from the administrator compensation plan.  Or, if not removed entirely from the plan, what about a decrease in the percentage received?  Why no discussion?

Does the School Board know how many administrators could qualify for this retirement bonus by the expiration of the administrator compensation plan in June 2017?  Also, according to Dan Waters contract, he too will receive this one-time bonus when he retires.  With his years of service in TESD, he will receive his one-time payment at the 100% level of his salary. Considering the state of the economic situation in this school district, it is incredible that this information was deemed unnecessary for public dialogue.  So much for all the discussion that the teachers and TENIG employees need to ‘give back’ to the District.  Where was the School Board on the administrators ‘giving back’ when they approved the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ as part of the administration compensation plan? Where do these one-time retirement payments appear on the budget?  Where does the money come from to pay for the one-time retirement supplement pension bonus?

Remember, there were no changes made to the levels of this one-time payment in the new plan, and the public was not permitted to discuss the issue until after the vote to approve the administrator compensation plan!

It is likely that many in our community were not aware of last week’s drama over the planned demolition of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School this past Saturday. Through the efforts of many neighborhood members, the courts received a temporary “stay of execution” to allow for further discussion.  However, getting the School Board Directors to call off the bulldozers at the ninth hour did not come easily or without a political tug-of-war between the School District and Tredyffrin Township.  In the end, the issue wasn’t about a few neighbors crying foul over the proposed demise of their local tennis courts. From my vantage point, this problem has more to do when elected officials and administrators choose to ignore the voices of the community until the situation borders on explosive.

For those that are unaware of what I’m talking about, here’s the brief overview.  Tredyffrin Township, on Tredyffrin Easttown School District property, constructed the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School and until 2009, maintained the two courts.  In 2009, the Township decided they no longer wanted to maintain the courts and requested that the School District take over maintenance.  However, according to TESD business manager, Art McDonnell, the District has never maintained the tennis courts.

The District’s 2008 parking study concluded the need for additional parking spaces at Valley Forge Elementary School — requiring the expansion of the existing lot.  I need to point out that the parking lot and its planned expansion is located in the front of the elementary school whereas the tennis courts are in the back of the property.  The expansion of the VFES parking would not include the property where the tennis courts are located.

The obvious question to ask … why demolish the tennis courts if the parking lot expansion is not close to the courts. It was the view of the School Board that they could trade the increased impervious coverage and storm water requirements of the new parking area with the removal of the tennis courts.  The Board believed that this approach would reduce the parking lot project costs and save taxpayer money.  McDonnell claimed that there was an agreement between the District and the Township in this regard.

Shortly before last week’s School Board meeting, Glenhardie neighbors to Valley Forge Elementary School were notified of Saturday’s planned demolition of the tennis courts.  Representing her neighbors, township resident Rosemary Kait appealed to the School Board Directors to delay the demolition pending further discussion. Based on the discussion, it appeared that the demolition was required by the township to meet storm water requirement for the parking lot expansion project.  Kait left the School Board meeting and went  to the Board of Supervisors meeting, seeking  resolution.

As the clock ticked down to Saturday’s ‘Demolition Day’, there was a flurry of activity with phone calls and emails from the residents to the School Board and administration as well as the township manager and Board of Supervisors. What quickly developed was a ‘Tale of Two Cities’ – with Art McDonnell claiming that the Township required the demolition of the tennis courts to meet storm water requirements for the expanded parking lot.  Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo countered McDonnell’s claims, stating that the removal of the tennis courts would not reduce the storm water requirements of the additional parking spaces.

In a press release from the Township, Martin takes issue with the way the District is presenting the situation to the public, and states that the District’s “… statement implies the Township requirements ‘force’ you to remove the courts”.  Martin suggests, “The District could have easily gone to the ZHB (Zoning Hearing Board) for zoning relief to impervious coverage limit.”

As McDonnell and Martin issued their statements on behalf of the District and Township respectfully, the residents worked behind the scenes – appealing directly to members of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors.  Copied on many of the email exchanges, I learned that these tennis courts are regularly used, not just by neighbors but by children in PTO sponsored after-school tennis programs.  I also learned that the tennis courts are currently in very good condition; but not because the courts are maintained by either the District or the Township.  For several years, at no cost to the Township or District the neighbors have actually maintained the tennis courts.

Believing that there had to be a better solution than demolition, (like a ZHB variance), all the residents were simply asking for delay for further discussion.  Although some have suggested that the proposed demolition of the tennis courts is not political, you cannot escape the fact that the president of the School Board Kevin Buraks (D) and chair of the Board of Supervisors Michelle Kichline (R) are completing their first terms and now seek re-election to the School Board and BOS, respectfully.  Clearly caught in the midst of this tug-of-war and finger-pointing, the residents planned a 7 AM ‘Save our Tennis Courts” rally.

Supportive of the residents, I planned to attend their early morning rally.  Acutely aware that the School District owns the property and therefore has the right to demolish the tennis courts, I believed that further discussion could produce an acceptable alternative to bulldozing. Very late on Friday night, School Board president Kevin Buraks notified the neighbors of the Board’s decision to delay the demolition, pending further discussion.  The next monthly TESD meeting is Monday, April 22.

Bottom line … in my opinion, much of the drama over the demolition of the tennis courts and the ninth hour decision to delay could have been avoided.  How?  Residents deserve better communication and accountability from elected officials.  I am troubled by (1) the lack of adequate notification of the District to VFES neighbors of the demolition; (2) misrepresentation or confusion of the related facts (I suggest that you read the conflicting  Township press release and the School District’s response) and (3) the overall feeling from residents of unresponsiveness from the School Board and administration.

Normally, I do not comment on Ray Hoffman’s column in Main Line Media News, but I take issue with his characterization of the threatened tennis court demolition.  In this week’s column, Hoffman says, “… the recent flak from neighbors over the scheduled demolition of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School is Shakespearean at its best, “much ado about nothing,” or an inventive modification of the NIMBY “law” at its worst.”

Mr. Hoffman, I could not disagree more … the proposed tennis court demolition is about much more than about ‘nothing’.  It is about accountability and transparency from our elected officials.  It is about the public’s trust for fairness from our government.  It is about those elected to serve listening to our concerns and working with us for acceptable solutions.  Poor accountability erodes our trust.

We learned this week that the Senate Democrats have dropped an effort to include a ban on assault weapons from their broader gun control plan expected to be introduced to Congress next month.  They conceded that a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines did not have the votes to pass.  However, VP Joe Biden is refusing to give up on the assault weapon ban; questioning the courage of members of Congress.  He stated, “…That weapon of war has no place on American streets, and taking it off American streets has no impact on one’s constitutional right to own a weapon.”

Seriously, what does it take to get these weapons off the streets?  In December, Adam Lanza committed mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School using a Bushmaster AR-15 “assault-type weapon”, a semiautomatic rifle that could rapidly fire multiple rounds.  Lanza was also equipped with magazine clips that held 30 bullets each.  If the innocent killing of 26 people isn’t the impetus for banning assault weapons in this country, what is? It is heartbreaking that some Washington legislators are more interested in the support of special interest groups than in doing what is right and passing a common sense gun violence bill. I would like to see these politicians forced to own their conscience in a roll-call vote; let us publicly see which side of the issue they stand.

Could our forefathers ever have envisioned Americans using assault weapons when designing the Second Amendment of the Constitution? How is that people can argue that banning assault weapons violates the 2nd amendment … this country had an assault weapon ban for 10 years and I do not recall it was ever legally challenged as unconstitutional.  The assault weapon ban simply expired.  If the argument is that assault weapons should not be banned because the Constitution does not specifically say that, why not take that argument further; the Constitution also doesn’t specify that the mentally ill or felons cannot own guns.

Unlike the United States, Australia was successful in passing legislation to ban assault weapons in 1996, in response to the massacre of 35 people.  Australia’s law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns.  It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

For those who would like to argue that banning assault weapons in the United States would not make a difference, I suggest that Australia’s statistics say otherwise.  According to an Australian National University study, the firearm homicide rate fell by 59% and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% in the decade after the 1996 law was introduced.  These statistics indicate that Australia’s experience with an assault weapon ban provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of such legislation.  In addition, it should be noted that Australia’s sweeping gun control measures occurred twelve days after the April 28, 1996 massacre, the worse mass murder in Australia’s history.   In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, with our nation shocked and looking for answers, why can’t we learn from Australia’s example? Why reinvent the wheel, when Australia has successfully prevented gun massacres for over 15 years by banning assault type weapons and magazine clips over 10 rounds?

To be clear, I get it that stronger gun legislation, through banning of assault weapons and reducing clip sizes is not necessarily a favorable position, particularly among some in Pennsylvania. Taking the discussion to the state level, I was troubled to read a press release from the office of PA State Rep Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler).  He and fellow State Representative, Seth Grove (R-York) announced that they are actively pursuing out-of-state gun manufacturers and encouraging their relocation to Pennsylvania, claiming that our state has the “single largest per capita representation of National Rifle Association (NRA) members”.

According to Metcalfe, who is the prime sponsor of the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (House Bill 357), “Pennsylvania is a natural fit for any of our nation’s major producers of guns, ammunition, or accessories that are currently looking for a new home due to the imposition of senseless, gun-grabbing legislation by their state or local governments.”

Passionate supporters of the Second Amendment and motivated by economic development, Metcalfe and Grove are rolling out the welcome mat to woo gun manufacturers including Beretta and Remington, to the Commonwealth.  With Metcalfe and Grove posing as the front men for the NRA, there should be no doubt, where these two stand on banning assault weapons.

Buoyed by his proposed legislation, House Bill 357, Right to Bear Arms Protection Act, Metcalfe is determined to override any gun restrictions that Washington may come up with – HB 357 would actually prohibit the enforcement of any new federal registration, restriction or prohibition requirement for privately owned guns and ammunition.  If passed, the bill further would require the state of Pennsylvania, including the Attorney General, to intercede on behalf of the citizens against any federal attempt to restrict, register or ban gun purchases, which are currently legal products.

I don’t claim to be any constitutional scholar but how is it possible that a state law, like HB 357 (should it pass) could legally stand up against a federal law?  Wouldn’t any federal law, like banning the sale of assault weapons, take precedent over Metcalfe’s proposed House Bill 357? Nevertheless, Metcalfe and Grove are using their pro-gun message to reach out to gun manufacturers in less gun-friendly states, in hopes of encouraging them to relocate to Pennsylvania.

Is this the new approach to economic development in Pennsylvania?

At the T/E School Board meeting last night, the public comment section offered several interesting remarks from TESD residents.  Representing her Brookmead neighborhood, Rosemary Kait expressed disappointment to the Board for the lack of notification that the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School will be razed on Saturday, March 23.  According to Kait, adjacent neighbors were received very late notification of the demolition plans via an email from TESD Business Manager Art McDonnell yesterday.  Although Kait, stated that following her comments to the School Board, she was headed to Board of Supervisors meeting last night, it is doubtful that the process will be stopped.

According to TE Patch, the School District states that there are two reasons for the demolition – “… the township will no longer maintain the courts, and the permeable ground that will replace the courts will offset new parking spaces at the school.”  Apparently, the removal of the tennis courts was part of the District’s 2008 parking study.  I was at the School Board meeting, so if someone has further information from BOS meeting, please update.

Tredyffrin resident Scott Dorsey had a couple of questions for the School Board.  He stated that as a minister he was associated with various nonprofits and asked about the letter that the District is sending out to tax-exempt organizations.  Dorsey wanted to understand what kind of documentation would be required by the organizations.  School Board member Betsy Fadem reiterated that there are 300 tax-exempt property owners in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships and that the  questionnaire is to determine whether these organizations still qualify for that status or should they be paying property taxes.

Although the possible tax savings according to Fadem was again stated as $1.6 million in Tredyffrin and $920,000 in Easttown, those numbers seem very high to me.  I understand that the District has financial needs, but what is the price tag for goodwill of nonprofits?  Even if a nonprofit qualifies for exemption under the District’s rubric, just fulfilling the requirements of the questionnaire is certain to cause a degree of angst (and possible legal expense) to nonprofits.  As someone directly associated with one of the nonprofits on the list, I know firsthand the level of anxiety the Board’s actions have caused.

The second question that Mr. Dorsey had for the School Board had to do with consent agenda process.  He wanted to understand how an item could be removed from a consent agenda.  Board president Kevin Buraks explained that it is generally unnecessary to hold discussion on consent agenda items but if a Board member wants to hold discussion, they can ask for the item to be removed from the consent agenda (and it will then be removed).  Alternatively, a Board member may also vote against or abstain with respect to the consent agenda without having asked it to be removed.

Although Dorsey did not say why he was asking the question,  it should be noted that at the February School Board meeting, Board members Anne Crowley and Rich Brake voted against the consent agenda, stating transparency issues because there was no discussion on the administrator pay increase included in the consent agenda.  As an aside, Scott Dorsey is challenging Rich Brake for TESD Region II.

The most poignant and powerful statement came from Mary Minicozzi, the new TENIG president.  Beyond the words that she read, was the passion for TESD as she expressed her commitment, and the commitment of all TENIG employees to the children of this District.  A paycheck doesn’t buy that level of devotion … the dedication of Minicozzi to and her fellow TENIG members is not easily replaced.  Most of TENIG don’t just work in the District, this is their home — most are taxpayers, many with children in the School District.  How do you balance any perceived cost savings from outsourcing against the pride, commitment and dedication of TENIG employees?  Here is Mary Minicozzi’s statement from last night:

TESD School Board Meeting, March 18, 2013
Mary Minicozzi, TENIG President
Statement

My name is Mary Minicozzi and I am the new TENIG President.  I am a taxpayer and a parent of 3 children that graduated from Conestoga High School. I would like to speak today regarding outsourcing the TENIG Employees.

TENIG employees consist of custodians, maintenance, secretaries, cafeteria and security staff.  There are more than 150 TENIG employees and all of us will be fired when you outsource our jobs.  Our families, our children and our livelihoods will all be adversely affected by your decision.  Please take a moment and think about the 100’s of people your decision will hurt.  And nearly all of these people, like me, have lived in T/E their entire lives and their kids live here, their parents live here and all of us contribute to make this community the great place it is.

Outsourcing for the T/E Schools is flat out dangerous.  How can you justify bringing strangers into our schools to watch over our children, support our teachers and advocate for parents.  While we are trying to secure the outside of our buildings, with security cameras and ballistic film on our windows, we are considering putting strangers inside our schools.

The students lives are worth much, much more than that. Actually a child’s safety and a parent’s piece of mind are priceless. It is a fact that outside corporation’s highest priority is making money.  They are not in the business of protecting our precious children. Please reconsider this dangerous method of cutting cost.

I would like to end with an experience I had several years ago when I was an elementary school secretary.

We had a fire in our Art classroom.  The fire alarm went off.  The Art teacher called me to tell me the kiln was on fire.  I made an announcement to evacuate the building.  I called 911 and notified the custodian who immediately went to the Art classroom to put out the fire.

After calling 911, I called Dr. Waters.  Within 3 minutes, maintenance workers from the District were at the school.  There was no principal in the building at the time of the fire.  I was responsible until administration arrived at the school.    My utmost priority was keeping your children safe.  Maintenance workers surrounded the building checking every area in the school to make sure all children were safely out of the building.

I  never left the building!  I stayed by the phone and answered every parent phone call.  Parents were so concerned and I was there for them to let them know their children were safe.

As you can tell by the story I just told: It was the Custodian, The Maintenance Worker and the Secretary (ALL TENIG EMPLOYEES) who alongside our teachers ensured all your children were safe.

Do you think this same scenario would have occurred if these positions were outsourced?  We are a critical piece to this wonderful school District. I am so very proud of that, my colleagues are proud of that and parents and community members talk with pride about T/E schools.

Are you prepared to look into our parents eyes and say, I promise you, I guarantee you safety will be exactly the same after you outsource TENIG.

In the past 3 years, TENIG has worked to help the District save money (even though that savings was the paid out to other employees in bonuses and pay raises.  We have sacrificed to keep our jobs and keep our schools secure.  Despite the sacrifices we have made in support of our fantastic district, we are now being threatened with being fired.

I hope that each school board member will seriously do their due diligence and consider the hundreds and hundreds of families that will be affected by your decisions.

Thank You.

 

Economic times and tight school budgets have school districts scrambling to find ways to cut costs, and the ‘outsourcing’ chopping block continues as a major target.   Proclaiming cost-savings for cash strapped schools is the driver behind school district outsourcing decisions – and there appears to be an outside company available for virtually every classified service.

There’s nothing wrong with researching the outsourcing idea; otherwise how will the School Board know if they are getting the best services at the best prices.  That said, I do object that the notification letter from the District was mailed to TENIG without any mention at a School Board meeting.  It struck me odd that the president of the teachers union rather than the president of the School Board disclosed this information. Don’t misunderstand, I am grateful that TEEA president Laura Whittaker brought the public up to speed on the outsourcing process.  But I don’t think it should be her job to keep ‘us’ in the loop.  It’s important that the public be in the loop during the Board’s ‘discovery’ process as it relates to the outsourcing bids, but also to important that the Board list to resident input on the topic.

The fact is that all the school districts are in a tough situation and that some form of outsourcing has become an avenue for some districts to save money.  Over in Pennsbury School District, members of their support staff, PESPA (Pennsbury Educational Support Professional Association) have taken their cause to the community.  With prominently displayed yellow lawn signs, PESPA are delivering strong words to their School Board, ‘STOP Pennsbury from Outsourcing’.  Well-organized, the union is fighting back through a website dedicated to outsourcing, www.pennsburystudentcare.org which includes an online petition with over 1200 signatures.

According Bucks Local News, Pennsbury’s business manager  Dan Rogers (equivalent to our Art McDonnell) is claiming that they could save about $21 million over the next 5 years by outsourcing custodial services, maintenance workers, paraprofessionals, IT support technicians and instructional aides. An additional $4 million could be added through the sale of buses and equipment. PESPA represents about 600 support staff members – they continue to work under the terms of their old contract, which expired in 2011. Fascinating to note that the chief negotiator for the Pennsbury school board is Jeffrey Sultanik (remember he was the negotiator for T/E School Board with our teachers union).

Sultanik is quoted at a School Board meeting saying, “ …the only way the Board would not consider subcontracting is if the union is willing to make significant salary and benefit concessions.”

Bucks County’s Quakertown School District support staff, Quakertown Education Support Professionals Association (QESPA) fighting back against the privatizing threat of 100 custodians and cafeteria workers. Armed with 1,500 signed petitions from community residents, QUESPA members want their Board to know that taxpayers do not the high quality of services provided to the children to be given away to an outside private company that will bring strangers into the schools.  QUESPA’s current contract expires the end of June but Board is underway in their solicitation of proposals from private outside vendors – believing that it could help save money on food and retirement benefits.

In southern Chester County, the driving force behind Brandywine Heights Area School Board’s decision to authorize an RFP to outsource paraprofessionals is the Affordable Health Act that will take effect in 2014.  Currently, in the Brandywine Heights district, the paraprofessionals work 6 days a week, 30 hours a week and are considered part-time.  However, under the Affordable Health Act, all workers who work 30 hours or more are eligible for benefits.

Kennett Consolidated School District (KCSD) is slightly ahead of  TESD in the process.  Having already sent RFPs out for outsourcing custodial staff, they are now reviewing the bid received from Servicemaster, a worldwide provider of custodial services.  According to data provided, outsourcing of custodial services would save KCSD approximately $400K in 2014, with higher projected savings in years ahead.  KCSD is set to make a decision this month on privatizing custodial services and are planning a similar review of outsourcing proposals of instructional and teaching assistant staff in the next few months.

I thank Keith Knauss, School Board director for Unionville Chadds Ford School District (UCFSD) for supplying the following background information for discussion:

” … As background, in 2009-10 TE had 312 full-time support personnel and 78 part-time support personnel. That’s the most recent year available from PA Department of Education.

Those 312 full time support personnel are entitled to salary and benefits defined in the current TENIG contract.
http://www.tesd.net/cms/lib/PA01001259/Centricity/Domain/42/TENIG09july.pdf

Let’s examine the district’s cost to employ a hypothetical 10 month, 190 day, 8 hour per day, Clerk Typist for this year and next.

2012-13 2013-14 Salary $31,981 $33,410 $21.04 to $21.98 per hr (4.5%) FICA @7.62% $1,218 $1,273 7.62% half reimbursed by the state PSERS $1,976 $2,835 12.36% to 16.97% half reimbursed by the state Healthcare $18,700 $20,196 est. family coverage, 8% inflation Holidays, Sick Leave $3,703 $3,868 10 paid holidays, 10 sick days, 2 personal days Total $57,579 $61,582 % incr 7.0%

There are two factors that might lead school directors to investigate outsourcing.

First, the cost increase from this year to next is estimated to be 7%.  This a problem when the district’s revenue is constrained by the Act 1 Index that is estimated to be 2.2% next year.

Second, the cost of benefits is far higher than in the private sector.  The PSERS retirement plan and associated cost has been under discussion several times in this blog.  What hasn’t been discussed is the cost of healthcare.    According to the Kaiser Foundation, the national average family plan costs $15,745.  The employer pays $11,429, the employee pays $4,316.  This is compared to TESD where the family plan is estimated to be $19,000.  The TESD pays $18,700, the support staff employee pays $300.  The district’s cost of healthcare for support employees is estimated to be $7,000 above the national average.
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf

As always, I try to be thorough and accurate.  I have purposely not advocated for any solution or made any determination as to what is fair.  Constructive criticism is welcome….”

Thank you Keith for this information.  Accepting that the District’s ‘hands are tied’ re PSERS costs (at least for the short-term), clearly the focus needs to be redirected towards healthcare costs, where the opportunity for change does exist.  I have been vocal in my support of TENIG, but as was the case with the teacher contract negotiations, healthcare costs are negatively affecting the budget bottom line.  The teachers provided healthcare concessions in their latest contract and I am hopeful that given the opportunity, the TENIG members may do likewise.

I received a voice mail from Steve Burgo, Tredyffrin Twp Engineer on Thursday to let me know that the sidewalk construction was underway at St. Davids Golf Club.  Not that I didn’t believe him, but I had to drive over to see for myself. Sure enough,the construction project is underway on Upper Gulph Road, on either side of Fletcher Road, next to the St. Davids Golf Club.  My impression was that the sidewalk was to be more like a path but based on what I saw, this is much more involved than I expected.  Besides the digging for the sidewalk, looks like there is  also a retention wall.

The construction of the sidewalks will satisfy the signed land development contract between the township and the golf club.  Thanks Steve for the heads-up!

Construction of sidewalk at S. Davids Golf Club