Pattye Benson

Community Matters

TESD Budget

Facebook Organizes Statewide Walkout of NJ Students in Protest of Proposed Budget Cuts . . . Could this happen in TESD?

April 27, 2010
5 Comments

Last night was the monthly TESD meeting. Although I have heard a few comments privately, I have not received a formal update. Did any of the readers attend the meeting? Is there any ‘new’ news to report? Speaking of school districts and budgets, a Community Matters reader sent me the following article — apparently today there has been an orchestrated walkout by New Jersey students to protest the planned budget cuts to the school district. Impressive that the students throughout the state were taken a stand against Gov Christie’s budget cuts. Organized completely with the use of Facebook — there should no longer be any doubt about the part that social media is playing with today’s events, issues, etc. Social media methods are changing the way we receive our information and updates; it is changing our future’s history.

New Jersey Students Walkout Over Budget

Thousands of high school students are walking out of class Tuesday to oppose New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s proposed cuts to education. Fox 29’s Steve Keeley reported from Pennsauken High School outside Philadelphia, where students began filing out of the building around 8:00 AM. There are reports of students leaving classrooms throughout the state. In all, about 16,000 students pledged on Facebook to walk out of school between 8 AM and 4 PM.

There also is a confirmed walkout at Rancocas Valley High School in Burlington County. Other schools that could be targeted are Southern Regional High School in Ocean County; Hammonton High School in Atlantic County; and Middle Township High School in Cape May County. In North Jersey, MyFoxNY was at Montclair High School , where students walked out on Tuesday. Keeley says the walkout at his location in Pennsauken is “very orderly.”

The planned protest comes one week after a majority of school budgets were rejected for the first time in 34 years. Voters in 537 districts turned down 59 percent of the budgets. Schools are facing the prospect of layoffs and program cuts. The governor says layoffs would not be needed if teachers take voluntary pay freezes and begin paying part of their health insurance premiums. The Facebook site was organized by Michelle Lauto. The 18-year-old college student went to high school in Bergen County. Lauto has relatives who will be affected by the cuts.

The state’s largest teacher’s union says students are “engaging in civil disobedience” but shouldn’t walk out of classes.

TESD Finance Committee Meeting Last Night . . . Notes from Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

April 20, 2010
24 Comments

I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting last night — once again, reality TV was alive and well in Tredyffrin Township. I will write about the BOS meeting later, presenting some of the highlights and, unfortunately lowlights of the evening. As a result of attending the BOS meeting, I counted on my friend Ray Clarke to attend the school district’s Finance Committee Meeting. Below are Ray’s notes from last night . . .

Moving to the TESD Finance Committee tonight, I must admit to much disappointment, as the past couple of months have brought little clarity and some regression. Analysis seems to have stalled.

Of the $1.5 million in “Strategy #2” expense items, I think that fully 50% must be discounted, at least in part, because:
– The idea does not account for all associated costs or qualifications (eg not all JV and Varsity sports teams can be bussed together)
– There are difficulties with the concept (eg selling advertising for extra-curricular activities/events)
– The notion is fundamentally vague (eg reduce utility costs, reduce legal costs)
– And last but not least, the strategy is thought of as unfair to some employees. Chairman Kevin Mahoney believes that the proposed salary freeze and adjustments for non-unionized staff are inequitable, and has asked for a rethink of the idea. Estimated impact: $445,000. Debbie Bookstaber took the position that taxpayers don’t have the money for these increases. Note that in any event, these pay freeze strategies are noted in the written descriptions as “one time”, implying that the amount was to be made up in subsequent years anyway.

It is coming to be accepted that there will have to be a larger draw down of the fund balance than has been discussed so far – another $0.5 million at least is my guess.

Noteworthy discussion: general support (with some clarification needed) for a fee of $20 per extra-curricular activity for middle and high school students and for a $100/year parking fee for students (only) at CHS (up from $10). These rates were thought to be low relative to other districts. The process for converting to self-insurance for health care is moving ahead – it will be important to keep a close eye on utilization.

There was another bond issuance discussion. The District is moving from funding capital projects from general funds (paid by past tax payers) to funding them from bond proceeds (to be repaid by future taxpayers). By necessity really – the capital fund has just $1.7 million, and there are plans to spend $16.7 million over the next three years. Now, the accounting rules let you capitalize the interest on the bonds for the first two years, so the day of reckoning can be pushed out even more.

All the more reason to actually move this discussion forward by:
a) quickly coming up with fully thought-through deficit reduction proposals for the upcoming year, and
b) presenting an accessible multi-year operating projection which includes:
– Adding back all one time expense reductions
– Adding all bond principal and interest costs
– Consideration of the likely base level of capital spending and bond issuance strategy (Will the district spend $15 million in capital every three years? Are there options?)
– Adding a best guess of medium term strategies that save real dollars (eg the changes to the CHS program)
– Adding the contracted increases in compensation and benefits costs

The size of the resulting multi-year deficit will show that it’s not going to be good enough to keep pushing off the discussion of all the options for both expenses and revenues. Again, tonight there was no discussion of an EIT, beyond two pages handed out that detail the difference between Act 511 and Act 1. My summary: only the former seems relevant, the Townships do not have to claim any of the revenue (but may), additional gaming revenue may allow TESD to claim some taxes paid to Philadelphia, and implementation would be subject to a voter referendum at a May primary, for earliest implementation on July 1, 2011. There was no quantification of the impact.

To my mind, it’s time for the district to show that it truly has a grasp of the big picture, and move on from reducing $10,000 in landscaping expenses to addressing the fundamental problem of managing and funding escalating educational requirements and employee/capital costs, in a largely developed community and a non-bubble economy.

A Perfect Storm for Chester County’s 2010-11 School District Budgets

April 18, 2010
Comments

On the eve of TESD’s important Finance Committee Meeting, I found this timely article by Mary Jean Curley, PR director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit particularly apropos. We are focused on our District’s budget; can we take solace in knowing that we are not alone?

In the past, readers have taken issue with my reference to the current school budget situation as a crisis, but I believe this is just the beginning. Read Mary Jean’s article and look at the statistics . . . at a minimum, we are on the brink of a crisis. Dramatic cuts were required to balance the township budget for 2010; and I think tomorrow night we will see the school district forced to likewise make some difficult decisions on programming cuts. Whether it is the township budget or the school district budget, as difficult as this year has been for budgets and necessary cuts, it’s going to be 2011-12 budget situation that is going to challenge all of us. Creative suggestions and visionary ideas will be required from both the township and school boards.

Chesco schools struggling to balance budgets with needs

By Mary Jeanne Curley is public relations director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit.

From Avon Grove to West Chester and everywhere in between, Chester County school districts are struggling to balance students’ needs and state mandates with taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

“There are a number of factors that are contributing to the shortfall in school budgets across the county and, in fact, the state,” said Joseph P. Lubitsky, director of administrative services for the Chester County Intermediate Unit. “The economy is a major factor; both interest revenue and tax revenue are down as a result of the recession and the bottoming out of the housing market.”Controlling health care costs, which even in a good economy is a challenge, is exacerbated in this economy, and now we are also contending with dramatic increases in the school employee retirement system,” he continued.

While local school districts all have unique situations, this year they share their budget woes and the cause of those woes, namely increased contributions to the Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System, higher health care costs, reduced interest earnings, declines in real estate taxes and the costs of unfunded state mandates.

At the top of every district’s list is the increase to the employee retirement system contribution. The local contribution will increase 72 percent this year and continue to increase every year until 2015. According to the retirement system’s projected employer rate, Pennsylvania school districts’ contribution rates will go from 8.22 percent this year to 10.59 percent next year and to 29.55 percent in 2012. The rates will then level off at 33.6 percent in 2015 and remain above 30 percent until 2020. For the Intermediate Unit, this means going from $2.5 million this year to $4.4 million next year and to $20.5 million in 2015.

The Great Valley School District, which recently passed a resolution urging legislative action for school employee pension reform, estimates pension contributions will cost the district an additional $12 million over the next five years, beginning with a $1.3 million increase next year.

The Great Valley School Board also voted not to apply to the state for an exception to raise taxes above the 2.9 percent index allotted under state Act 1. Contributions to the employee pension fund and special education are two costs for which school districts are allowed to apply for an exception.

The Great Valley School District is not alone in voting to remain within the confines of the Act 1 index. Avon Grove, Coatesville Area, Downingtown Area, Oxford Area, Tredyffrin/Easttown and other school districts have taken similar positions. The Chester County Intermediate Unit lacks taxing powers of its own and relies on its funding from its member school districts.

Health care costs also continue to spiral out of control. For example, medical renewal costs in the Kennett Consolidated School District are expected to increase by 40 percent, in Owen J. Roberts by 39 percent and in Phoenixville Area schools by 27 percent.

In addition, while special education costs continue to rise, state and federal support for the mandated programs has steadily decreased as an overall percentage of support. Special education costs have risen at the Great Valley School District from $2.8 million in 1999 to a projected $10.1 million next year. Meanwhile, state and federal funding rose from $1.1 million in 1999 to $1.5 million for 2010-11.

State support has gone from nearly 40 percent to less than 15 percent of the district’s total budget.These costs alone would strain a district’s budget, but coupled with decreased interest and tax revenue, they have created a perfect storm for school district budgets in the 2010-11 school year.

The tax base in Chester County has steadily eroded over the past seven years, decreasing by $12 million in the past school year alone. School districts hardest hit include Avon Grove, Downingtown Area, Great Valley, Kennett, Oxford Area, Tredyffrin/Easttown, Unionville and West Chester Area. Tax revenue has decreased $654,023 for Kennett, $218,898 for Great Valley, $184,000 for Octorara and $180,442 for Oxford.

Interest earnings are down as well. The Intermediate Unit’s interest earnings are down from $1.2 million in 2007 to a projected $627,991 next year.

Similarly, Great Valley predicts interest revenue for 2010-11 will fall from $1.9 million in 2007 to only $90,000 next school year, or an annual loss of nearly $2 million in revenue. The decline has been sharp over the past three years, with last year’s interest only generating $390,169, a net loss of $640,182 from 2008-09.

All of these factors are leaving school districts with three options: cuts costs, raise taxes, or find alternative sources of revenue. With many county schools boards opting not to petition the state for exceptions that would allow them to raise taxes above the state-approved index, all districts are looking at a combination of these three options.

For example, to close a $4.9 million budget gap, the West Chester Area School District eliminated 19 staff positions and put stadium lights on hold, and it may change school bell schedules, consolidate bus routes, raise student parking fees and increase taxes 2.9 percent.Several school districts are looking at charging facility rental rates for the first time or increasing existing rates.

In the Great Valley School District for the 2009-10 school year, the school board eliminated nine full-time positions and 12 teacher extra-duty positions and reduced summer workers by 50 percent, theme readers by 50 percent and instructional aide by 3,500 hours.

For the 2010-11 budget, just to maintain the status quo, Great Valley officials will need to cut expenditures by $1,645,933 and raise taxes 2.9 percent. The Chester County Intermediate Unit has deferred hiring staff and has eliminated 18 positions. It has reduced energy and operational costs by $268,000 a year. In addition, the Intermediate Unit continues to work with the school districts to save money through joint purchasing, in which participating schools realize an annual cost reduction of $2 million by bidding for supplies jointly.

The Intermediate Unit’s self-insured medical program continues to contain health care costs, and while the Blue Cross fully insured program saw an average rate increase of 30.88 percent, the Intermediate Unit’s rate increase is projected to rise just 2 percent next year.

Although not bound by the Act 1 index, the Intermediate Unit has made a commitment to its member school districts not to raise costs above the average county index and has kept its member core contribution rate unchanged. The Intermediate Unit is also working with school districts to find alternative funding sources. It recovered $2.9 million in costs for Chester County school districts through medical reimbursements for services provided to special education students. Districts are responsible for these costs as part of the students’ educational programs.

Many school districts are requesting community input to help them through this fiscal crisis and have extensive budget information on their Web sites. To find out more about a school district’s budget process, visit the district’s individual Web site. A link to all Chester County school district Web sites can be found at www.cciu.org (click on the “Find Your School District” link).

Mary Jeanne Curley is public relations director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit.

North Penn, Montgomery County Teachers Set to Strike Monday . . . Could this be a sign of the times?

April 17, 2010
Comments

Many of the area school districts are in their final discussions for the 2010-11 budget, include Tredyffrin Easttown School District. As the school year is starting to wind down, there is news that the North Penn teacher’s union in Montgomery County has made the decision to strike starting at 7 AM this Monday. North Penn School District is a large sprawling district with over 13,000 students. Are the actions of the North Penn School District’s teachers a sign of the times?

If I understand the teacher union’s case correctly, the teachers told the North Penn school board what they were willing to accept in the contract negotiations. However, the school board voted unanimously to reject an arbitration award from the arbitration panel mediating between the district and the teachers.

The teacher union and the school board put a spin on the proposed contract differently. The teachers union report that their proposal included a $43.4 million salary increase, 23.5% annual payroll increase over the next five years of the contract. According to the school board, the proposed teacher contract ignored the fact that the proposed teacher’s contract would increase the current district budget by over 17.3% and as a result require residents to pay an approximate 25.4% increase in property taxes over the five years of the contract. The teacher union is disputing these tax hike numbers presented by the school board. North Penn union president Alan Malachowski argued, “The salary increase in the first year was a 0, which our teachers overwhelmingly said was OK, and beyond that were yearly increases of 2.5, 2.5, 2.8 and 2.8 percent, very modest salary increases that they know they can afford.”

For comparison sake, the current North Penn salary schedules for 2009-10 starts at $42,870 and ends at a maximum salary of $93,948 (the same as in the base year of 2008-09). The proposed increase allows for a starting salary of $49,518 to maximum salary of $104,410 in 2013-14. How do North Penn’s teachers salaries compare to T/E School District?

______________________________________________________________

From our own school district . . . the TESD Finance Committee Meeting is scheduled for this Monday, April 19, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School auditorium. Here is the Finance Committee Meeting agenda— interesting to note that the Earned Income Tax (EIT) is listed as an agenda item.

Could a Merit-Pay Component be in the Future of TESD Teacher Contracts?

April 14, 2010
Comments

A Community Matters reader sent me an email about the proposed teacher contract in Washington, DC. which some are saying could become the national model for school districts. Here’s an article from the Washington Times with the details — an interesting model, don’t you think? Could this merit-pay component work for future TESD teacher contract negotiations?

DC Teacher Contract Includes Merit Pay . . . Provision to be funded by foundation grants

By Deborah Simmons
Washington Times

After more than two years of talks, officials with D.C. Public Schools and the Washington Teachers Union announced Wednesday a tentative contract deal that includes a merit-pay component – an issue long pushed by conservatives and supported by the Obama administration, but considered a no-no by teachers unions.

The deal, which also breaks ground by funding its merit-pay program with private money, marks the end of the on-again, off-again negotiations between schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, who was brought on in June 2007 by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to turn around the troubled school system, and the D.C. teachers union, whose members have been working without a contract since fall 2007.

New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, who is in the midst of contract talks, told the Wall Street Journal that the merit-pay plan is a “game-changer” and said he hopes it will become a national model.

The plan still awaits ratification by the unions rank and file, as well as approval from the D.C. Council. It also could be rejected or amended by Congress, though this is not considered likely.

Mrs. Rhee, school-choice advocates and other city leaders have said for years that the career-ladder approach favored by unions hinders reform because it determines teacher pay primarily on the basis of seniority, regardless of their students academic performance. Mrs. Rhee, who has drawn national headlines since she arrived in Washington, also has drawn praise and criticism from parents, teachers and principals as she moves forward with her reform plan.

The union deal calls for school-based professional-development centers and mentoring programs, and a five-year pay package dating retroactively to October 2007, when the last contract expired, and ending in 2012.

The deal gives teachers 3 percent raises in the first, second and fifth years, 5 percent in the third year, and 4 percent in the fourth. The plan also gives Mrs. Rhee additional flexibility to lay off teachers to address budget and enrollment concerns.

The new pact “puts teachers performance with their students at the forefront of all decisions in the [school] district – including compensation and teacher assignment,” Mrs. Rhee said Wednesday.

Both enrollment and money will be at the forefront of D.C. Council members’ minds as they begin 2011 budget hearings next week. The mayor has proposed boosting the school system’s budget for next year even as enrollment steadily declines. The 2008-09 enrollment figure was 45,190, compared with the previous school year, which stood at 49,422. Ten years ago, enrollment was around 67,000, and 20 years ago, the number of pupils was at 80,000.

The agreement unveiled Wednesday calls for a voluntary pay-for-performance plan to reward teachers whose students show academic improvement on standardized tests and other academic measures.

The merit program will be financed with an estimated $65 million in private funding from four institutions that will be gathered by the D.C. Public Education Fund. The four organizations include the Laura and John Arnold Foundation ($10 million) and the Robertson Foundation ($19.5 million).

The Walton Family Foundation, which was established by Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton in 1987, made the largest pledge – $25 million. The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation has promised $10 million. In March of last year, Mrs. Rhee was named a board of director of the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems, which is funded by the Broad Foundation.

D.C. teachers have two weeks to vote the agreement up or down.

Some Community Updates . . .

April 1, 2010
2 Comments

Some Community Matters updates . . .

1. Local Job Fair: State Representative Paul Drucker’s Job Fair yesterday in Phoenixville was an enormous success . . . over 400 job seekers attended! Rep. Drucker reported that people were lined up outside the convention center and down the street prior to opening of the event. Over 40 companies participated in the Job Fair including the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Social Security Administration, Cosi, Chesterbrook Academy, Wegmans, Northwestern Mutual, TD Bank, to name a few. Rep. Drucker told me that he knows of one employer who hired 5 people yesterday! Sounds like it was a good day for employers and prospective employees. Great job Paul!

2. Fire Company Funding: Supervisor Paul Olson called me yesterday to provide an update on the status of the ‘cardboard check’ to the fire companies — yes, he referred to it as a cardboard check. In December at a Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors unveiled a cardboard check in the amount of $23,200 which was to make up the fire company deficit that was removed in the 2010 township budget. Through supervisor fundraising efforts by Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Olson, Olson explained that they had exceeded the dollar amount of the cardboard check. The total collected of approximately $25,000 was turned over to Rip Tilden of the Berwyn Fire Company for distribution to the fire companies. No information was provided as to the actual source of the contributions. However, one of the individual contributors told me that she received a thank-you from all 3 fire companies so presumably the money has been distributed.

3. TESD 2010-11 Budget: Malvern resident Ray Clarke took the advice of Community Matters readers. Based on posts and comments, Ray has a letter to the TESD School Board with the following list of questions. Here’s hoping that the School Board will consider these questions as they prepare for the important upcoming Finance meeting on April 19. Thanks Ray.

  • Can the school district impose a PIT on the residents?
  • Does Act 511 permit the District imposing PIT?
  • Would imposing PIT require voter referendum?
  • Would the imposition of PIT reduce property taxes?
  • Is a voter referendum required for EIT?
  • If there was an EIT, how would the split of revenue work between Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships?
  • Does an EIT reduce the property tax bill?
  • Would both townships be required to have an EIT in place to receive the revenue? Or, would the townships receive their portion of the school district’s EIT revenue?
  • Would there be a difference to the teacher unions in regards to an EIT or PIT?
  • Does the rate have to be the same for both townships?
  • What are the options for splitting the revenues between townships and school district, and does the split have to be the same in each township?
  • What is the exact nature of the reciprocity arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions, particularly Philadelphia
  • What will be the estimated financial impact to townships and school district, under various likely scenarios of rate and split, on the following dimensions:
    a) Incremental taxes paid by township residents
    b) Taxes currently paid by township residents to other municipalities that will stay in T/E
    c) Taxes paid by non-residents
    d) The total of the above

I’m glad to provide updates to ongoing community issues; let me know if you have anything new to report.

Economics Driving TESD's Budget Woes . . . EIT to Be Explored

March 16, 2010
19 Comments

Ray Clarke attended the TESD Budget Workshop last night and provides the following commentary. I am fascinated that the school district is bringing EIT out of hiding. There is much misunderstanding about Earned Income Tax – we need an open and thorough airing of EIT. I would suggest that the TESD and township partner for the discussion, have an outside expert give a presentation (like Easttown Twp did for its residents). The presentation should be taped and then shown repeatedly on both the school district and township cable networks. Some people hear ‘tax’ in the Earned Income and then simply shut-down.

Whether it is the township or the school district we are talking about — we are currently facing tremendous economic hardship and all revenue sources must be explored. Personally, I don’t want to pay more taxes and my personal household will suffer with EIT (my husband works for Unisys) however, . . . there is also a reality to the situation. I applaud the School Board for recognizing the need to explore Earned Income Tax and would hope that the Tredyffrin’s supervisors would be likewise motivated — it’s called exploring options. Both the township and the school district have been faced with major deficits in their budgets that have required cuts in personnel, services, programming in an attempt to close the gap. But to what end can we continue to make these cuts? At what point do we weigh the quality of life that all enjoy in this community vs. increase in taxes? I do not see how continuing to say, no new taxes is a long-term solution to the problem. Comments?

A quick report from the Budget workshop. Only 25 or so residents tonight, probably reflecting that there was little discussion of program changes. The occasion was used mostly to lay out a framework, stake out some board member positions, and set up the important April 12 Finance Committee meeting where the next level of expense reductions will be discussed.

However there were some really significant outcomes, worthy of full attention.

The basic parameters being positioned to balance the budget are:
– Implement the $4 million of expense reductions already discussed
– Tax to the full 2.9% cap
– Use $2 million of fund balance
– Find at least $0.7 million of 2010/11 reductions from $1.5 million of mostly non-educational strategies
Round numbers, subject to tweaking up or down.

The principal dissent came from Dr Brake, who is not thrilled with the proposed changes to the Middle School program. He seems to be the only one on the other side of this.

Dan Waters and Kevin Mahoney lost few opportunities to highlight the fact that these 2010/11 actions leave the structural problem untouched (shades of Tredyffrin’s “structural deficit”!). And they are right: 50% of the $4 million is one year only, and of course the fund balance use can’t continue for ever. The deficit for 2011/12 after the above programs would still be $7.5 million (8.2 – 0.7).

So, the administration is going to do the following:
– Deepen the study of the $2.6 million of class size, CHS period changes, etc. that – practically – can not be implemented until 2011/12. (Strategies 47-56, approximately.) If all were implemented, the deficit would be down to $4.9 million.
– Study the implementation of an income tax. Taxing to a likely 2% Act 1 property tax cap next year would still leave the district $3 million short, so this – to me – seems inescapable.

Some EIT information that’s new to me, and definitely has a major impact on the revenues for TESD: Kevin Mahoney stated that there is the potential to reclaim not only taxes paid to neighboring municipalities, but also to Philadelphia (which would apparently get reimbursed from gaming revenues).

Kevin Grewell has posted a lot of helpful EIT information here. Important features confirmed tonight appear to be that this would be implemented under Act 511, which is coordinated with the Townships. Resident tax is split between School District and the townships, non-resident money is collected by the Township (which turns out to be looking at fire department funding).

Debbie Bookstaber (from the last TSC) asked that the study include a comparison of an EIT and a PIT.

The Board took pains to emphasize that program changes must be fully vetted, particularly in the Education Committee, and subject to public input. Back to that April 12th meeting. Also, decisions will need to be made soon on the health insurance funding and bond issuance as part of the $4 million 2010/11 programs – the former in particular being highly susceptible to assumptions. I’d like to be convinced that all aspects of utilization risk have been thought through

Further School Budget Discussion . . . How will the District fund the gap?

March 15, 2010
31 Comments

Tonight is an important TESD Budget Workshop — 7:30 PM, auditorium at Conestoga High School. Yesterday, I posted the agenda and materials for review. This is our school district and our taxpayer dollars . . . how do you want your dollars spent and how do we fund the district deficit?

There have been many budget-related comments today on Community Matters — several of which were focused on EIT. For further discussion, below is a commentary received from Ray Clarke. In the past, Ray has offered his opinion on EIT but has updated his remarks based on TESD’s current 2010-11 budget information. Here are Ray’s comments — let’s use this as a starting point for discussion:

I’d like to get away from history (except as a guide to the future) and ponder what needs to be done to secure our kids’ education going forward. I think much of the evidence supports John’s advocacy of an EIT. I’ve posted it here before but here goes again, starting with updated budget numbers:

1. After one round of proposed program changes that have been vehemently opposed by many in the community, plus a 2.9% property tax increase, the school district will still be in the hole by $3 million in 2010/11, $8 million in 2011/12. (Note that it is relatively easy to squeeze expenses for just one year…..). No official word from Tredyffrin yet, but the township will need to fund contracted compensation increases next year, too.

2. A 1% EIT would raise $9 million for both Tredyffrin township and school district, of which $2.7 million is already paid by residents and $2 million would be paid by non-residents. (Easttown would also have to implement the tax.)

3. Perhaps a 2010 Tax Study Commission would ask a question like: “Would you prefer that property taxes increase 15% for all, or that the township residents not now paying a 1% EIT do so and the township gets a 1 for 1 match, worth $4.7 million a year now and increasing with inflation?” Might there be a different answer than to 2007’s question, which referenced only shifting taxes from property to income?

4. There will be in 2011 a county-wide mechanism to collect an EIT at low cost for all the other townships with this tax.

5. An EIT diversifies the tax base among all income earners and wealth holders.

6. The TSC stated that: “Had we been presented with compelling funding needs by the school board that could not be satisfied by the present system we may well have endorsed a change in the manner in which our schools are funded.”

So, given that …

– There is no willingness by the TEEA to consider deferring accelerating teacher salary increases (6.9% in 2009/10 over 2008/9, and more contracted each year until 2011/12) and sharing health benefit cost increases

– We need to fund $4 million a year in replacement capital and the capital fund is running dry

– There is no willingness to unlock capital tied up in unproductive properties (note: enrollment is projected to decline in the short and medium term)

– $2 million of the $4 million proposed expense savings have only a one time impact

…it seems to me that the need is indeed compelling. Whatever views one might have of past School Boards, it seems to me that the current one has to operate in a very different economic environment and that their actions should reflect that.

Monday, March 15 — 2010-11 School Budget Workshop

March 14, 2010
9 Comments

Budget Development Workshop
Monday, March 15
7:30 PM
Auditorium, Conestoga High School

Budget strategies for the 2010-11 school district have been discussed at the February and March Finance Committee meetings. Those budget strategies are reflected in a draft budget which will be discussed in greater detail at the Budget Development Workshop tomorrow night. There will be slide presentation; click here for meeting’s agenda and a review of the slides. There is much information included on the slides and I would encourage everyone to review. One slide that caught my eye was the following:

Professional Staff (TEEA)
2009-2010
Teachers, Guidance, Media Specialists, Nurses

• Average years of service in T/E is 10.3 years (10.5 for 2008-09)
• 77% hold advanced degrees (74% for 2008-09)
• Average salary $74,581 ($69,788 for 2008-09)

How does the District intend to close the remaining gap in the 2010-11 budget? We know that there will be a $2.9% tax increase and the suggested budget cuts total approximately $4 million. There remains a $2.7 million gap . . . how will that deficit be funded? floating a bond? more programming cuts?

In the review of the Looking Ahead slide (pg. 26) we note that the 2011-12 school year budget indicates a deficit of $8.2 million (most of which is not attributed to PSERS increase). When the PSERS increase fully kicks-in for the 2012-13 school year, the deficit sky-rockets to $18.5 million! It continues to climb from that point — seriously, have a look at pg. 26, the numbers are staggering!

The draft budget includes budget strategies from the February and March Finance Committee meetings. These strategies include:

• Contribution from Food/Nutrition Service Fund to General Fund
• Education Service Center Disposition
• Outsource Print Shop
• Restructure 7th and 8th Grade Program Delivery
• Eliminate Elementary FLES Program
• Restructure Middle School Special Area Classes
• Reduce Number of Regular Education Aides/Paraprofessionals
• Eliminate all Conestoga High School Classes with Fewer than 15 Students
• Eliminate Supervisor of Special Education Position
• Reduce Number of Extra Duty Responsibility Positions and Club Sport Contribution
• Reduce 2010-2011 Budget Requests to 2008-2009 Levels
• Issue Debt for Capital Expenditures/Long Lived Assets
• Explore Self-Insurance for District Medical Coverage
• Hire an E-Rate Consultant
• Reduce Information Technology Budget by 10%
• Reduce Use of IT Contracted Services by 20%

Although I previously provided the budget strategy information, I think it is important to re-post that link for your review. These informational materials were used for the March 8 Finance Committee Meeting. The consensus reached by the School Board and Administration was to tentatively use budget strategies #1-12, 14, 31, 39 and 40 for a savings of approximately 4$ million. What budget strategies would you suggest to fund the remaining $2.7 million budget gap?

Tomorrow’s Budget Workshop represents one of the few remaining opportunities to let your voice be heard in regards to the 2010-11 budget. Whether you are a teacher, parent or taxpayer . . . do your homework by reviewing the materials and come to the meeting prepared. Offer your opinion to the Administration and School Board; speaking up could make a difference in programming and jobs for next year.

TESD Facilities Committee Update

March 13, 2010
50 Comments

To update . . . I attended the Facilities Committee meeting on Friday morning. The meeting started at 7:30 AM and lasted until 11 AM! Dr. Pete Motel is the chairman of the Facilities Committee; school board members Karen Cruickshank and Anne Crowley serve on the committee and attended. Also in attendance for the meeting was Superintendent Dr. Waters, Business Manager Art McDonnell, Controller Jeff Curtis, Construction Manager Bob Plyler, and Architect Tom Daley. School board president Betsy Fadem was in attendance for some of the meeting. Ray Clarke, Julia Hanson and 2 other residents also attended the meeting. The agenda included complete updates on all current and planned district construction projects.

I had never attended a Facilities Committee meeting so I was not sure what to expect . . . Pete Motel could not have been more welcoming to me, and much to my surprise, seemed to appreciate my many questions. There was not a question that seemed to be off-limits; they could not have been kinder or more patient in their responses. There will be minutes from the Facilities Committee and I will post them when they become available. Here are some of the meeting highlights. Ray, feel free to add your comments from the meeting.

I asked about the use of Teamer Field, whether it was available to rent. Teamer Field is not available and the reason is that there is an agreement with local residents to be mindful of the community with lights, noise, etc. Aside from specific district school usage, they are respectful of the community and the immediate neighbors by not allowing non-district usage.

The 4 houses on Lancaster Avenue will be demolished in June, after school gets out. The demolition is being coordinated in conjunction with the township sidewalk project. It is the intention that the work will be Monday-Friday (during daytime hours) and all neighbors are to be notified of the demolition schedule. Originally slated for additional parking, this land will be seeded and the parking lot project has now moved to the 2011/12 budget. When pressed, Dr. Motel does not think that the parking lot will ever be constructed, period. It does not appear that there continues to be a parking need. This will be savings of $1million+ in the 2011/12 budget. There was a question about whether the Old Lancaster property could be sold — it’s not so much whether or not it could be sold. Dr. Motel was absolute that the District will hold on to the property; it will not be sold. The ESC building (next to Easttown Library) is slated for demolition in the fall. That building has major asbestos issues and its demolition will remove a yearly maintenance cost to the district.

I asked how the land on Old Lancaster Ave and the 1st Avenue (ESC site) would be used in the immediate future. Future usage had not been decided — I made the suggestion that perhaps the space(s) could be used as a community garden or perhaps middle or high school student garden projects. Just thought that this could create an opportunity for a partnership between the District and the community — maybe even a ‘feed the hungry’ type of garden. Not sure where I should take those suggestions . . . maybe there is a local nonprofit that would like to get involved.

At the end of the meeting, I thanked all those in attendance at the meeting for their indulgence with my questions. I can not stress enough — Pete Motel and all in attendence offered complete access and transparency. I was most impressed!

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme