Thank you again to everyone who sent me e-mails. I just can’t believe the amount of support out there.

And Blair, I agree with much of your logic. I’m not denying there may be other employees or properties falling by the wayside as a result of this purchase. I think it’s important to recognize, though, that JRC before Paton closed a whole slew of properties that ultimately helped make it appealing as an acquisition. What’s left is what’s still making a profit.

I even think SP’s suggestion that the print publication will end, someday, is accurate. Someday, however, can be a long way away. Why? Because the print publication’s base is rooted in the 55+ age bracket that is accustomed (unlike those who are younger) to reading news over breakfast from a platform other than a pixel-primed screen. That base will be around for another 10-15 years, at least.

Your knowledge of big companies shows, Blair, and you make worthwhile points. I apologize if SP readers were, unlike you, unfamiliar with my history here and elsewhere; thanks for calling me on it.

Regards,

Joe Zlomek, Managing Editor
The Pottstown Post

I’ve worked for several Fortune 500 companies in various capacities throughout my professional career. I totally agree with you SP. I’ve worked at companies that have been bought up and sold off and have seen the loss of many good former co-workers.

I’m not a newspaper person (thank goodness!) but I think the new owner of JRC will consolidate and close properties. It’s not a stretch to think that will happen to The Fishwrap. Just look at Corporate America today. Billionaires (like Mr. Smith) are gobbling up companies and spitting out the bones. It’s just a matter of time.

As savvy journalists yourselves, you surely understand that circulation is the least of three measures of a newspaper’s success. The first, and most important measure (not only for newspapers but for ANY enterprise) is profitability. The second is overall revenue, consisting of both advertising and circulation sales. The circulation number ranks a mildly distant third.

I will bet a bagful of the new Jake’s Wayback Burgers, made by my friends the Hendershots in their soon-to-be-opened franchise at Upland Square, that you would be surprised – shocked, even – to learn where Pottstown’s daily newspaper (I’m sorry, guys; I just hate “The Fishwrap”) ranks in the first two categories among its JRC Philadelphia publishing brethren.

If you read the current market analysis of Alden’s financial play, the speculation focuses not on consolidation and closure but on following the now proven Paxton strategy of lowering costs by spreading content from one publication, modified or as-is, across several others.

Capsule message: From bankruptcy to $41 million is nothing to sneeze at. Alden thinks Paxton’s got it right, his kittens and rainbows notwithstanding.

As I noted at the outset, I understand why you and Save Pottstown readers wouldn’t relish this observation. But no matter how earnestly you might hope for it (and as a reader myself since shortly after you launched, I’m well versed in all reasons why you do), I suggest The Mercury will go neither go quickly or quietly.

Regards,

Joe Zlomek, Managing Editor
The Pottstown Post

IMHO, the two biggest questions to ask and base a decision from are:

1) What are the future costs to the town in tax dollars? What plan saves us the most future tax dollars?

2) What plan provides for the most efficient, effective educational product for the children?

So I’ll take a stab at your question, readytomove, because my belief is that the recommended 3 school, PK – 5 plan accomplishes the best long-term savings.

While the 3 school plan is 33 million, there is a significant PDE reimbursement so that 33 quickly becomes 24. Let’s figure in a more than generous cost overrun, just for arguments sake, and make it 26 mil for total construction costs of the 3 school plan.

The 5 school maintenance plan has been estimated (estimated, because there are still some figures which aren’t known) as a 13-15 million dollar plan. There is no PDE reimbursement with this (and quite possibly a higher cost of financing.) Let’s add in that same cost overrun and put it at 17 mil for the upgrade costs of the 5 school maintenance plan.

That leaves a high estimate of an upfront 9 million dollar difference between the two plans.

Now, let’s look at the savings. With the 3 school plan, the savings in staff reductions is $750,000 in the first year. That cost was generated using this current year’s salary/benefit numbers. This savings would actually increase each consecutive year (compounding) as teacher salaries/benefits costs are always increasing, which we’re all painfully aware of.

Operating and utility cost savings for the 3 school plan would equal $135,000 the first year. (This figure does not take into account the efficiency savings of improved lighting, newer efficient HVAC systems, etc.) Again, this was calculated using this year’s utility and operating costs and as they also go up every year, this savings would increase each consecutive year.

So, in the first year alone the 3 school plan saves $885,000 in staff, operating and utility reductions and that number actually increases in every consecutive future year. But wait, there’s more! The Plan-Con financing for the 3 school plan may yield a much better rate of financing. With current cap rates, it is very feasible it could be as much as 2% or more. There is a small savings to be had there.

All totaled, the per annual savings of the 3 school plan would be very close to a million dollars. It would therefore take approx. less than 9 years to make up the savings of expending the additional 9 million dollars up front, right now for the 3 school plan. (Coincidentally, 9 years from now is when the highest debt burden of the PERS fiasco will be upon us. Seems to me we would want to be saving the most money possibly come that point in time to keep the tax burden lower than it needs to be.)

To be fair, the 5 school maintenance plan does provide savings, but nowhere near to these levels. The utility savings for the geo-thermal payoff alone are longer than 9 years. And I’ll throw it out there – Mr. Hylton loves to say that his plan would keep these buildings open for 20+ more years but not Crabtree Rohrbaugh or any structural engineer has yet to professionally opine that sentiment.

Look at all the improvements you’re getting with the 3 school plan that you aren’t with the other: ADA compliance, multi-purpose rooms to accommodate PE and lunch, Pre-K rooms for a max of 20 students, classrooms for a max of 25 (classroom max is higher with the other plan), decent library, art, music and computer rooms. All of these things for lesser future tax dollars than keeping the current status quo.

Mr. Hylton loves to dangle the fact that Pottstown is the 7th highest taxed district in the State. His plan of “light maintenance” on 5 schools does nothing to help that figure. It is a band-aid for a system that has failed us when what we need is a shift towards a more efficient system. The 3 school plan gives us an opportunity to realize better efficiency in schools that attract people and includes significant future cost reductions.

We may never see taxes go down, but we can make the right choices to slow their impending rise in the future.

A wise Superintendent recently said, “It takes courageous leadership from individuals in the community as well as those in official positions of leadership to focus on the issues that continually keep this community from reaching its potential.”

Truer words were never spoken.