Radnor School District Archives - Page 2 of 2

Radnor School District

As Tredyffrin-Easttown School District works through the 2011-12 budget, it is interesting to watch how other school districts are handling their budget shortfalls, particularly in light of the public education cuts in Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget.

This week the Radnor School District and the Radnor Township Education Association reached a tentative agreement for a new teacher contract. The collective bargaining negotiations between the school district and the teacher union have been going on for over a year. Details of the contract will not be released until after the teachers union presents the contract to its members for ratification early next week. As our school district neighbor, I wonder if their contract will have any influence on TESD teacher contract discussions.

Another neighbor to TESD, the Phoenixville Area School District (PASD) has major budget issues. As the dust settles from the cuts contained in Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget, a tax hike of 8.75% is needed to close the gap – twice as much as the district had anticipated. Previously, the school district budget included a 4.43% tax increase but with the loss of state funding, they will require an additional 4.32% . . . a tax hike of 8.75%!

At the Pottstown School District meeting this week, their school board took a stand with three interesting votes:

The school board rejected the idea of “forward borrowing” of $23 million without voter approval. (The district has authorization for $28 million for work on the district’s elementary schools and the vote would have increased that borrowing amount by $23 million).
The school board approved the extension of a contract for mid-level administrators and principals that freeze their salary for one-year. (Cost savings: $30K)
The school board accepted an offer by the district’s three top administrators to freeze their salaries for one-year. (Cost savings: $15K)

Prior to the vote, the school district was considering a 4-year contract for administrators and principals to include a minimum 1.5% salary increase plus potential merit pay increases. According to the district superintendent, following the announced funding loss from the state was announced, these employees volunteered to take pay freezes for one-year. Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget will provide $3.1 million less state funding to the Pottstown School District.

For comparison sake, I checked on the salaries of administrators in the Pottstown School District. The top 10 highest paid administrators in the Pottstown School District earn in the range of $102K – $119K per year; their superintendent has a base salary of $152K.

The Pottstown school board hopes that the administration’s one-year pay freeze sends a message to the teacher union, Pottstown Federation of Teachers. According to Pottstown Mercury, www.pottstownmercury.com , Pottstown School District president thanked the administrators for the one-year salary freeze, “I want to thank you for pulling your belts a little tighter for us, I hope some of the other school districts around here see what you’re doing for us, how you lead by example.” There is an unresolved contract between the district and the teachers union. The teachers are currently without contract and last month rejected the independent fact-finders report that the school board accepted unanimously. Sound familiar . . . Unionville-Chadds Ford School District currently have a similar situation with their teachers union.

I guess TESD can take solace in knowing that we are not alone. With school districts facing looming deficits in their budgets and increasing expenses, Corbett’s proposed budget does not offer much hope for help from the state.

Corbett’s campaign promises included no tax increase but it seems to me that he has just pushed that job down to the local school districts. School districts are expected to balance their school budgets, but how? Not much in the way of choices . . . school boards are forced to make education cuts or they raise taxes. Does no responsibility lie in the shoulders of our elected officials in Harrisburg? How can they expect citizens to pay more in property taxes than they can afford?

Or . . . does the buck just stop with the taxpayers?

What do Sidewalks, McKenzie’s Brew House and St. Davids Golf Club have in common? Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors Meeting

February 25, 2011

8 Comments

Today’s post includes a roundup on a variety of topics.

Due to President’s Day, Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting will be Monday, February 28. Based on the length of the agenda, we could be in for a long evening! Here are some of the scheduled highlights:

Sidewalk Subcommittee Presentation – This is the third attempt at this presentation; the first date cancelled because Bob Lamina was out-of-town and the second date was rescheduled because presenter and subcommittee chair Tory Snyder.

A bit of Sidewalk Subcommittee history . . . Do you remember Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting back on February 22, 2010? If you recall, there was much debate about the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk requirement in their land development plan. First, the supervisors voted to return the $25K sidewalk escrow to St. Davids and then, based on public opinion, opted to reverse the decision in February 2010.

Because of the St. Davids escrow debate, a Sidewalks Subcommittee was formed to review (with public input) the future construction of sidewalks and bike lanes in the township. The township continues to hold St. Davids sidewalk escrow pending the outcome of the Sidewalk Subcommittee’s recommendation and then ultimate vote of the Board of Supervisors relative to sidewalk requirements in the township. Understanding the open liability issues on land development projects, the sidewalk subcommittee was presented with an end-of-the-year timeline to present the supervisors with their recommendations. Public hearings and a public survey were included in the sidewalk subcommittee analysis. It is my understanding from attending their meetings that St. Davids sidewalk is included in the sidewalk presentation.

Interesting agenda item: Schedule a public hearing on March 7, 2011 to consider a liquor license transfer in the Township – I was curious about this agenda item and contacted Mimi Gleason and discovered some potentially good news for the township. McKenzie’s Brew House is expanding and is interested in a location in Tredyffrin – the old Charlie Brown Restaurant location in the Valley Fair Shopping Center. This will be a multi-municipality liquor license transfer, as they will be moving the license from the old Basil’s in Willistown Twp to the Charlie Brown location. According to Mimi, this transfer does not require any sign-off from Willistown, just needs our supervisors support and approval. Moving to the same shopping center (in the Bargain Bookstore – Tuesday Morning location) is Meeley’s Furniture Store, taking both floors. Filling empty retail and restaurant locations is good news for the local economy!

Planning Commission Annual Report – listed as an agenda item, I admit I do not recall the Planning Commission making a public presentation of the annual reports in the past. Wonder if there is any relationship between the timing of this annual report and the upcoming Public Hearing on March 21 to discuss an amendment to the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance giving the Board of Supervisors the authority for approval or denial of a land development plan. (Currently this authority is with the Planning Commission).

Newly appointed supervisor Mike Heaberg will be taking his place for the first time at Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I wish Mike well and know that his financial expertise and independent views will prove an asset to the community. Speaking of supervisors, the candidate petition signing is underway for the school board and the board of supervisors. On the school board side, I cannot offer much public information, except that five of the nine school board seats available. Three of the five current school board members will seek re-election (Karen Cruickshank, Jim Bruce, and Pete Motel) and two board members will not (Kevin Mahoney, Debbie Bookstaber). I do not believe the slate of school board candidates is finalized – I think the deadline is March 8 for petition signatures.

Tredyffrin’s GOP held their endorsement meeting this week and endorsed Mike Heaberg and Kristen Mayock as Republican at-large supervisor candidates. Heaberg was also endorsed to run in the special supervisor election. Paul Olson and John DiBuonaventuro were endorsed as eastern and western district Republican supervisor candidates. On the Democratic side, opposing Heaberg and Mayock, as at-large candidates are Molly Duffy and Ernie Falcone. It is my understanding there will not be a Democratic candidate for the western district slot. I am unsure if either Duffy or Falcone will oppose Heaberg in the special election.

Here’s an interesting and creative way to increase revenue for the school district. There is a proposal in Radnor School District for ‘naming’ opportunities. The current policy on the ‘naming’ of school facilities is restricted to honoring community members for their contribution to the community or school district. By relaxing the naming requirements may offer some financial benefits to the school district. This idea has some potential . . . a science lab, a hallway; the auditorium . . . all could have naming opportunities. Maybe the school district permits the naming on a yearly basis and the naming opportunity goes to the highest bidder. Just a thought . . . TESD, any interest?

Will T/E School Board Include an Activity Fee in the 2011-12 Budget?

January 2, 2011

17 Comments

On the eve of the Special T/E School Board meeting, there is much discussion on the $8.8 million deficit for the district’s 2011-12 school year and its challenge. Over the last couple of weeks, I do not recall much discussion about the possibility of adding an activities fee to the 2011-12 budget. If you recall, the T/E School Board passed the 2010-11 school year budget without the inclusion of an activity fee. The estimated $80K in activity fee revenue was removed before the passage of the final budget. The consensus at the time was there was not enough time to look at the details required for such an assessment. However, it was thought that some form of an activity fee should be discussed for inclusion in the 2011-12 budget.

Every year, students of all ages opt for extra-curricular activities. The activity may not be high-profile football or some other “major” high school sports. The involvement may be in the performing arts or any variety of positive clubs or organizations that contribute to making school kids better citizens. Depending on the activity, the kids and their parents may spend a lot of personal money on extra-curricular expenses (sports workout clothing, voice or instrumental music lessons, club-related materials, etc.). In addition, along with time spent on their studies, these students spend inordinate amounts of time practicing to become better performers or working for the good of the club. It’s also not uncommon for them to devote many hours of added time with fund-raisers to defray organizational expenses. Parents are not to be spared, either. Any parent of an “involved kid” at school will tell you about driving kids to and from practice, helping with fundraisers, etc. So how do we feel about imposing an activity fee on the T/E students and their families? Do you think that an activity fee will impact participation?

Checking other school districts, Lower Merion, Coatesville, Phoenixville, Owen J. Roberts and Kennett school districts currently have no additional activity fees. (I was not able to verify that Radnor School District imposes an activity fee – maybe a reader knows the answer.) Great Valley and West Chester school districts do not currently have an activity fee but are considering such a fee for the 2011-12 school year. The Downingtown school district charges their activity fee at a flat rate of $25 per sport.

Unionville-Chadds Ford School District currently has an activity fee but is considering an increase for next year’s budget. Their suggested approach is a creative four level-tiered schedule – $10, $25, $50 and $75 depending on the type of sports and student activity. The fees will cover many kinds of activities from math and academic clubs to participation on sports teams, like football and basketball. With the increase, the activity fees will generate an annual income of $133.00. The calculation of fees was based on total cost of the activity, an amount not to exceed 20% of the total cost. Using football fees as an example, the proposed increase is 200%, from a current $25 fee to $75; the increase would still be under the 20% of total cost.

If T/E adds an activities fee to the 2011-12 budget, how would the assessment be applied . . . per activity, per sports involvement? Would the charge be an annual assessment per student or per family? Will the assessment be a flat rate or a creative multi-tiered approach? Where does the T/E school board stand on the activity fee subject? I will be curious to see if the activity fee subject is discussed at tomorrow night’s special School Board meeting.

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters