"Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of the Way"

From the 'better late than never' department...My last post suggested that our BOS consider donating part or all of their pay back to the Township to help close our budget gap, especially since a couple of them have thrown staff layoffs on the table for consideration. I suggested that true leaders don't ask their employees to do things they themselves would not - in this case, they were being asked to find more ways to cut expenses out of the budget.

In that spirit, because I walk my own talk, at our Zoning Hearing Board meeting Tuesday night, I and another ZHB member donated our stipends back to the Township, with the condition that the funds be earmarked for the always chronically underfunded Parks & Rec budget. A third ZHB member later indicated he, too would follow suit.

I have to give kudos to supervisor Chris DiPaolo for apparently following our lead and my suggestion. I had to leave tonight's Board of Supervisors meeting early to pick my son up from an event at the high school, but I understand that after I left, Chris donated his stipend (I believe the entire amount) back to the Township's general fund. Although I still contend that these actions originate with true leaders, regardless of when or why he did it, I am truly glad that he did and that the Township will have a little more money to work with in 2011. That's something every resident can celebrate.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Last night I attended one of several 2011 budget review meetings held by our Township in their attempt to figure out how to close the expected gap in the General Fund between revenues and estimated expenditures. This meeting was unusual and by all accounts was something of a fire drill in that it was quickly put together and advertised, even though the budget process for this year is essentially over, with only 3 meetings left in 2010 in which to vote on its approval. The fact that it got to this point so late in the year is a direct result, in my opinion, of one of the supervisors not making the effort to stay informed all along, but I'll save that for another post.

It appeared after the budget workshops held earlier this year that the Board was in agreement as to where to make cuts and would work with staff over the next few months to further identify areas of potential savings and closely monitor expenditures (and in the meantime the hope is that some projects that may bear fruit will come to pass). However, my understanding is that last night's meeting was called at the request of supervisor Chris DiPaolo ostensibly to further explore whether additional cuts could be made or whether taxes need to be raised.

There’s a long backstory, but bottom line, we’ll be carrying a balance forward into 2011 in the General Fund of only about a quarter million dollars. That’s very little wiggle room.

As comparison, back in the day when there was heavy commercial & residential development, it was not unusual to have a couple of million in the General Fund to carry forward into the next year. Now, not only are we substantially built out in terms of residential development, but in this economy, there's precious little commercial development contributing any money into the coffers either.

All the supervisors have previously gone on record as stating that a tax increase for 2011 is not an option, particularly in the severe economic conditions we're experiencing (even a half mil increase in taxes would net approximately $800,000 for the Township). That leaves cuts, cuts beyond what has already been identified since mid-year, when the budgeting process began.

At last night's meeting, the township manager and staff walked the Board through various potential areas that could be cut, or cut further. While there was one big potential bright spot - the possibility of about $120,000 in savings due to a reworking of the employee healthcare contract - it's still not enough to close the gap.

Let me stop right here and make an observation. Frankly, since Chris called this last-minute meeting, you would think that perhaps he had some great idea(s) as to how to close the gap to share with the rest of the Board, the staff and the public, but apparently not. Not only did he seem to expect the township manager to lead the meeting, but also appeared to expect staff to come up with all the ideas. Shouldn’t this be coming from the top down?? Shouldn’t the staff be getting guidance from the BOS as to what are sacred cows and what budget line items the BOS is willing to get complaints about when cut? Putting the responsibility for avoiding a tax increase squarely on the staff isn’t fair to them – they are not elected to these positions. Leadership and direction is supposed to come from the top down.

Among the areas the staff mentioned as potential areas for savings were things like eliminating televising the township meetings and printing the annual report; instead of having the county animal control officer remove dead animals from our roads, doing it ourselves; foregoing our annual donations to the fire department, ambulance squad, and library, Methacton's post prom, Visiting Nurses and Victims Services; and cancelling the annual senior citizen's dinner. Retiring our 2 K9 police dogs was another area offered up. It was obvious that staff worked long and hard and creatively came up with areas in which we could get by with less, or do without something entirely. Some of the proposed cuts were line items costing as little as $1000 a year.

(A big line item? Legal fees for the BOS and the Zoning Hearing Board. I've been saying for some time now that the alarming and expensive propensity of some members of the BOS to file legal challenges and appeals (particularly against it’s own Zoning Hearing Board's decisions) or hire 'special counsel', has led to a ridiculously high legal spend - which was reflected in the budget as a significant line item - for a municipality our size, and in a budget year such as what we are looking at, is especially distressing to me when one considers in what ways that money could be better spent. Don't get me wrong; some of the Township's legal expenses are legitimate, but in my opinion much of it is frivolous and instigated solely and vindictively to punish someone, make a point or help out a political friend, despite the slim likelihood of success on the merits. We simply cannot afford this nonsense any longer...but I digress).

Even after all this, Chris DiPaolo and Don Thomas made it clear that they expect staff to go back to the well yet again, and find another 5, 10 and 15% in cuts to present to them that could be made so that they can evaluate the impact if they enact those cuts - and if those cuts include staff reductions, so be it. Marie Altieri and Colleen Eckman were much less comfortable with the idea of staff reductions. And again, I think the staff should be getting their direction from the BOS and not the other way around.

Now, I understand that the BOS is trying everything they can to avoid raising taxes, and that is commendable. I wish our county and school district were so diligent, but they seem to find it quite easy to jack our taxes up regularly whenever they need more money. People are, even in this affluent area, losing their homes, experiencing long-term unemployment, and having their bills go up substantially. The last thing they need is to be taxed out of homes they are hanging onto by a thread.

  

However, I respectfully suggest that good leaders don't expect those who serve them to do things that they themselves will not do. One line item in the budget is the yearly stipends paid to each supervisor as token compensation for fulfilling their duties. None of our supervisors suggested that they themselves take a 5, 10, or 15% cut in their pay or, heaven forbid, forego the stipend altogether. Why is that?

As of 2005, when I was on the Board, said stipend amounted to $4000 per supervisor per year; it may be more than that now. Granted, it's not enough to support a family on and, if you are doing the job the way it should be done, it doesn't come close to fairly compensating you for all the hours you put in. However, to my knowledge, all the supervisors have regular paid employment that pays their bills or other long-term means of support.

If it were me, I'd forgo 100% of my stipend before even considering laying off so much as one police officer, public works, parks & rec or administration staffer, or asking them to work without the tools they need to do their jobs - especially since many of them have been doing the work of 2 or 3 people for a couple of years now. We're extremely fortunate to have such talented, dedicated and resourceful employees, and to punish them with layoffs when they've been taking it on the chin already - and are being asked to squeeze their belts some more - would be a real travesty. At a minimum, I'd cut my own stipend 15% before asking them for anything.

How about it, BOS?  Especially those of you who are suggesting that staff reductions should be considered, and who went on ad nauseam about how much you're personally aware of how our residents are suffering, what better opportunity to show us that you 'feel our pain' and that we're not the only ones who have to tighten our belts?

The 411 on stop422tolls

Driving around town over the past couple of weeks, you may have noticed red & white signs among this fall's crop of campaign signs, promoting a website (www.stop422tolls.com). This website is solidly against the idea of tolling Route 422 to raise money for the Commonwealth, and hopes to defeat the re-election hopes of the only elected official to come out in favor of it, Paul Drucker, the freshman Democrat state congressman (House) for the 157th district. But what's behind the movement? 

Put together by a group of residents from Audubon (Montgomery County) and Chester County, the effort is also championed by the Valley Forge Patriots. These are folks frustrated by current traffic congestion in the area and are strongly against any efforts to toll 422, which they view as adding to existing traffic problems in addition to objecting to the uncertainty surrounding what would be done with any tolls collected. In addition, other local elected officials have also come out against tolling 422, including Mike Vereb, John Rafferty, and Rep. Tom Quigley (Pottstown). Mike Vereb is on record as stating tolling of 422 is "a reckless idea" and that he is 'vehemently opposed to it".

As background - over the summer, representatives from the  Montgomery County Planning Commission, Chester County Planning Commission and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission presented their 422 Corridor Master Plan outreach program to various local municipalities. A new transit line, as well as tolls on Route 422 may be in the area’s future (albeit probably not in the immediate future). A possible rail line is seen as an option to provide an alternative to traveling by car — extending transit service beyond Norristown along an already-existing rail line.

The aim of the 422 Corridor Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to planning development in the 24 corridor municipalities in Chester, Montgomery and Berks counties. An important element of the master plan is how to handle growth, development and the ever-increasing traffic on 422. The plan suggests the widening and maintenance of 422 in addition to ramp and interchange improvements, and according to Leo Bagley, assistant director of the Montgomery County Planning Commission, any funds raised by tolling would have to go first toward maintaining 422 and secondarily fund a rail line.


The county planning commissions took the 422 plan ‘on the road’ to each of the municipalities and asked elected officials and residents to provide comments. Township supervisors were asked to consider adopting a resolution endorsing the master plan’s principles and strategies. Getting the municipalities to work together in partnership with the county planning commissions was the goal of the road trip. Lower Providence heard the pitch at their June 17, 2010 meeting, with Board of Supervisors chairman Rick Brown stating that they (the Township) would try to adopt a resolution supporting the 422 master plan as soon as possible. Supervisor Chris DiPaolo motioned to adopt it at the July 1, 2010 meeting and the motion passed unanimously. (By contrast, two supervisors in Limerick Township went on record before they voted to endorse the plan on July 20 as being specifically opposed to any option to toll on 422).

 It is my understanding that the tolling of 422 is still considered a possibility to help offset the major land developments costs contained in the 422 Corridor Master Plan, although Drucker and others have suggested that the proceeds from tolls would go to fund the creation of the proposed 62-mile Schuylkill Valley Metro rail line, which thus far SEPTA has been unable to move forward. 

But seriously, though, when's the last time any government entity collected money which was supposed to be a 'dedicated funding source' (for whatever purpose) and actually used it for that? I have little to no faith it would happen in this scenario either. And ESPECIALLY when it comes to Harrisburg; I don't trust them to spend taxpayer money where it says it will. One need only remember the gaming legislation that allegedly was going to go towards funding property tax relief — well, guess what, folks, that money is being used for sports stadiums, to build college campuses, etc. And nothing has changed in property tax world. 

While Drucker has taken pains lately to flip his position and walk his earlier comments back, he was an early and vocal supporter of tolling 422, for whatever reason the funds would be collected. In an April Times Herald interview, he admitted he was not fully acquainted with some of the issues, but said the tolling of Route 422 to pay for the Schuylkill Valley Metro transportation project, was "a good idea".


Then, in May, he was thus quoted in the Times Herald "“I believe a light rail line to alleviate traffic on 422 has the potential to benefit our region, and I believe it can be funded in such a way that local residents don’t get stuck with the bill". Ahem....anyone who lives in a community surrounding the 422 corridor is going to get stuck with something, be it paying a toll for the privilege of sitting in traffic longer once ON 422, or being stuck with the cost of repairing wear & tear to local roads from the traffic driven off 422  by cars trying to avoid paying a toll.  And, as Rep. Vereb noted in a September 22 speech, "it would take catastrophic amounts of money to make it [a rail line] happen and would be a catastrophic waste".

In my opinion, tolling on 422 would be a horrible turn of events for Lower Providence. Any improvements that have been made in traffic flow (intersection improvements, traffic light coordination etc) - particularly in the Audubon area - over the past few years would evaporate as hundreds, if not thousands, of additional cars flood local roadways to escape tolls and idling cars sitting on 422. Many of those roads are roads that we LP taxpayers are on the hook for maintaining, and we just borrowed money to repair and upgrade - improvements that have to last the ten years it will take to pay off the loan. 

If you live in any of the areas of Lower Providence that are represented by Rep. Drucker (most of Audubon, Shannondell, and the area of Trooper surrounding Woodland Elementary School), I urge you to vote for his opponent, Warren Kampf, Nov. 2 for state rep. And if you know anyone in any of the areas of LP or Chester County that are represented by Rep. Drucker, I suggest calling them, making sure they know where he stands on the toll issue, and asking them to be sure to get to the polls that day to vote him out. The best scenario? Join together at the polls, and make sure Mr. Drucker has to get on a toll road home after packing up his office when he's voted out on November 2.

Not Your "Average Joe"

At the October 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors came to final agreement on a new contract for our township manager, Joe Dunbar. Supervisors Chris DiPaolo and Don Thomas were appointed back in March of this year to conduct negotiations with Joe, but it is my understanding that it took them until August to even begin the process. 

Conscious of the financial limitations that the Township and its residents are facing, Joe offered to take no increase for 2011 and, as reported in the Times Herald, asked for a three-year contract with no additional benefits. I was a supervisor when Joe's original five-year contract, which expired Sept. 1, was negotiated. The original contract had a provision for accrued comp time above 90 hours per pay period, to be payable only upon termination, resignation, or retirement. Otherwise, it would go unpaid. This is a fairly standard option in employment agreements for executive personnel.

This new contract they came up with was a bit different. What's perplexing to me is this: why would Chris, who I understand was the lead negotiator, present a contract to his fellow Board members that calls for a payout of the comp time now, especially in these tight economic times?

Chris ultimately voted against the final version of the contract he negotiated. Now, I may be biased, since I've negotiated all kinds of contracts with all kinds of entities as a large part of my job for more than fifteen  years, but for Chris to arrive at a set of terms and conditions that he felt comfortable enough presenting to the Board and having their solicitor put in writing, only to then turn around and vote against it, makes it patently obvious to me that either Chris isn't a very good negotiator or he's running for re-election next year and wanted to be seen as not voting for any expenditures.  Or, quite possibly, both. 

He's quoted in the paper, citing the contract's provisions as 'too expensive'.  Was he intentionally trying to overstate the value of the contract to bolster his position? Maybe Chris can explain his logic at the next BOS meeting, but it seems like posturing to me.

I happen to think Joe is worth every penny in his contract. He's very effective, a proactive, big picture thinker who's also good with detail, and a class act who knows how to get the best out of staff. Ultimately, the buck stops with him when something goes wrong and he accepts responsibility, as a good manager should, whenever there's a problem. He has earned the loyalty and respect of staff as a result. He's also earned the respect of local municipal officials, business leaders and governmental agencies. As an example, earlier this year, Joe was the recipient of the "Excellence in Public Service" award from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. Montco Chamber of Commerce Spring 2010 newsletter

I can personally attest to the fact that the Township gets much more from Joe than just what he's obligated to do. During my time as a supervisor, it was obvious to me that he goes above and beyond on a regular basis. It wasn't unusual to get a phone call from him at night, early in the morning or on weekends.

I'm glad he'll be with us for another three years. He'll have served longer than any other Lower Providence Township manager, and longevity and stability can go a long way toward a municipality maintaining a favorable credit/bond rating. But, in my eyes, that's the least of the reasons his position with the Township is a good thing. Kudos to the BOS for getting the deal done, with or without Chris on board.

The meter is running

If you are an attorney practicing municipal law in Montgomery County, you might want to float your resume in front of Lower Providence's new Board of Supervisors.

Not content to have the customary one firm appointed as solicitor representing the interests of the Township, they saw  fit to hire an additional, 'special' counsel, to 'review' (read: attempt to undo) the December 7 award of the latest five-year trash hauling contract to J.P. Mascaro & Sons.  Rick Brown and Chris DiPaolo were the only two of the five-member Board who discussed documenting the resolution that was put in front of all five for a vote that evening.  Rick, Chris and new member Don Thomas (who, judging by the deer-in-the-headlights look that always seems to be pasted on his face, probably had no idea what he was looking at) voted for the extra legal hire. The ladies voted against it.

All this 'reviewing' has a price tag of approximately $150/hour for nonlitigation work and $175/hour for litigation in addition to the charges our regular solicitor, Michael Sheridan, charges.

And this is a litigious group of people, our new Board of Supervisors. Between them, as of the last time I looked at the various dockets, Chris, Colleen, and Don have 10 (10!) attorneys working for them on other matters, and that's not counting the ones they just hired with your tax dollars.  That total doesn't include the guy Rick Brown hired last year to file his 'friend of the court' brief in the American Revolution Center case - which he filed AFTER they decided to leave and despite his position already being put on the record when he testified as a witness in the case. Oh wait...I think that was filed by Mr. Sheridan, before he became solicitor this year.  Geesh, I can't keep track.

Mrs. Eckman even sued the lawyers that originally represented her in the Mascaro case, seeking to have other attorneys permitted to represent her - rumour has it, a relative - and lost. She's appealing that decision...of course. She is, after all, one of the folks that helped chase the American Revolution Center out of town, so this is probably a walk in the park for her.

On top of that, the Board of Supervisors just directed Mr. Sheridan to intervene in a recent Zoning Hearing Board case in order to appeal it, because, allegedly, our new Board of Supervisors did not agree with it. This, despite the fact that one of the neighbors who originally opposed the applicant's plans (and by his own admission bankrolled the hefty cost of his litigation himself to the tune of $60K and counting)  has already filed an appeal of his own. He certainly doesn't need the Township to sue on his behalf.

This is all the more outrageous because the Township really isn't aggrieved; a lot that had been an eyesore and a longtime public nuisance was cleaned up, junk hauled out, buildings that were in disrepair were rehabilitated. It appears to be more or less an attempt to appease yet another special interest down in 'the Thumb'.

In fact, the irony  is that because errors or oversights were determined to have been made by the Township relative to the history of that property, and the applicant in the zoning case relied upon them, the Township could be culpable. The Township, in intervening, may actually be making the applicant's case for damages against the Township for him should he lose on appeal.  They certainly didn't get involved to defend their staff.  Bottom line: your tax dollars may well wind up being being spent to lead to more of your tax dollars being paid out in damages.

And let's not forget the lawyers. They make money no matter who wins or loses.

I can't imagine how much money Lower Providence will shell out in legal fees for what are arguably frivolous lawsuits over the next six years if this pace continues. As the rest of the county is painfully aware, we are in a severe recession and can ill afford to waste precious resident tax dollars - dollars that aren't flying into the coffers like they used to - on contracts that were lawfully awarded, unnecessary appeals and redundant briefs.