Pattye Benson

Community Matters

2010 budget

Looking for School Board Budget Details

November 24, 2009
Comments

I explored the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board website looking for current comprehensive school budget information. I found the final 2009-10 School Board budget which is marked ‘draft’ online. (I am assuming that this became the final budget). The document is actually a 6-page overview — the budget line listings are limited at best. The complete budget for the current fiscal year needs to be posted online. I would also like to see budgets from previous years linked to the school district website, for comparison.

Overwhelmingly, comments received from emails and phone calls have been in regards to teacher salaries, teacher union contracts and the process. Understanding the teacher salaries are the major component in the school district budget, I was hoping to be able to review the salary schedules, health care benefits, tuition reimbursement, union contract information, etc. Unfortunately this level of detail was not available on the district website. I did determine the combined school district salaries and benefits in the 2009-10 budget listed as $71,595,554. If my addition is correct, district salaries and benefits is equivalent to 65% of the total listed expenditures of $110,424,721. Now more than ever, with our continuing economic crisis, full disclosure and transparency is needed and would be welcomed by this taxpayer.

I suggest that the school district’s website include a section where it provides comprehensive information about, and copies of, the school district’s major contracts with employee organizations (unions) entitled to bargain collectively on behalf of teachers. The teacher contracts and benefits account for nearly 2/3 of the total districts costs and commit the school district to maintaining agreed-upon payments over many years. Unions representing teachers in Pennsylvania have the legal right to strike, so I would suggest including information on contract negotiations and proposed terms of future contracts, including:

  • Number of years the contract is proposed to remain in force
  • Salary schedules
  • Summary of health care benefits
  • Retirement incentives (bonuses, continuing health care coverage)
  • Days per year/hours per day worked
  • Tuition reimbursement
  • Other personal benefits
  • Assessment of union dues for non-union members

Not being successful on the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board website, I researched beyond our school district in hopes of understanding the process. What I discovered was great variances in available information and level of transparency among the 501 public school districts in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania spends approximately $22 billion annually on public education from all sources. About 35% of this money is appropriated by the General Assembly and allocated to local districts by formula. These formulas are partly set by programmatic factors (e.g., funds for “basic education” and “special education” are allocated separately) and by measures of a district’s potential tax base. For most Pennsylvania school districts the main source of local revenue is the property tax, followed by either an earned income tax (EIT) or personal income tax (PIT). Local districts have the legal right to levy other taxes, but many have abolished these so-called “nuisance taxes” on various grounds.

Since the passage of Act 1 of 2006, boards must announce during December of the year before a school fiscal year whether they will increase property taxes beyond a formula-determined ceiling or to request exceptions to this ceiling from the state.

All of this being said, do you think that our School Board will consider making more budget details available on the district website along with continuing updates on the 2010-11 budget process? Comments?

Tredyffrin Easttown School District – 7.2% Tax Increase Possible

November 23, 2009
7 Comments

In an update from the Tredyffrin Easttown School District, it is stated that there is a deficit of $1.5 million in the current school year (2009-2010) budget. This deficiency plus the current economic situation is affecting the 2010-11 budget decisions. It is anticipated that the 2010-11 school year’s expenses will exceed revenues by approximately $8 million! Act 1 of the 2006 Pennsylvania Tax Relief Act allows for a 2.9% increase. The 2.9% tax increase would provide additional $2 million revenue. This tax increase would not require voter referendum to pass. The School Board has not raised taxes above the annual index since Act 1’s enactment in 2006. However, even with the 2.9% tax increase, a $6 million deficit remains in the budget.

The School Board is allowed to increase taxes above the annual index based on specific allowable exceptions. The District’s analysis confirmed the eligibility for exceptions in (1) state mandated retirement rate increase, (2) special education and (3) maintenance of selected revenues. If these options are applied for and approved by the State, the School Board would have an option of raising taxes up to an additional 4.3% – combined with the allowable Act 1 increase of 2.9%, taxpayers could be looking at an increase of 7.2%! We understand that the current economic situation presents a real struggle for the School Board and the administration, but how to balance the budget? How do you want the School Board to balance the budget? Do they greatly increase taxes, reduce services, eliminate programs (such as FLES), increase existing fees, charge for extra-curriculum programs?

Tonight’s discussion at the School Board meeting should be very interesting — 7:30 PM at Conestoga HS. Come out and let your voice be heard! Here is a link to the agenda, October meeting minutes, correspondence and financials.

Tredyffrin Easttown School District's FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School) – Budget Cut?

November 23, 2009
Comments

There is a T/E School Board meeting tonight at 7:30 PM. One of the major discussions tonight will be the possible elimination of the FLES (Foreign Language in Elementary School) program. Many T/E parents strongly support the continuance of foreign language learning at the elementary school level. They believe that the T/E middle school foreign language program is accelerated compared to other school districts as a result of FLES. An online petition opposing the elimination of FLES has had 571 signatures since November 12 – click here for the petition. Will the supporters of FLES prevail? Stay tuned.

I’m hearing that our proposed school tax increase may be as high as 7.2%. Let’s hope that this isn’t so — let me do some further checking.

Mt. Pleasant Update

November 20, 2009
Comments

Some updates to report on Mt. Pleasant:

Recently, there was a meeting with some of the Mt. Pleasant residents, the township police and Supervisors Judy DiFilippo and John DiBuonaventuro to discuss concerns and ongoing issues in this neighborhood. A town hall type meeting is currently in the works which will include Mt. Pleasant residents and landlords, in addition to township representatives. Providing an open forum for the participants to air their differences will encourage a path for peaceful solutions. This is good news. I salute those involved in the process and look forward to hearing about the scheduled date for this town hall meeting.

At this time, Tredyffrin Township does not have a specific ordinance that address student housing in the township. I was told that the township is looking at neighboring municipalities ordinances for student rental properties with the intention of creating our own ordinance. With the township budget cuts, are we going to have money to pay for a new ordinance? I did some checking on my own — Radnor Township has specific ordinances and guidelines concerning student renters. In their ordinance, Radnor has established oversight and enforcement policy for landlords and students. It would be interesting to know if Radnor has seen a difference in policing requirements as a result of stricter penalities for landlord/student offenses. Following up and enforcing rental housing is challenging in Tredyffrin. Tredyffin’s Zoning Officer, Emmy Baldassarre (Tel: 610-408-3614) is doing a good job with follow-up when specific situations are brought to her attention. Understand that she can only do this job if she is provided with specific details of offenses. Emmy is very approachable and I would encourage the public to contact her with zoning questions.

I received an update from last night’s Planning Commission Meeting. An applicant for a property on Upper Gulph/Mt. Pleasant area presented a subdivision plan to convert a single family home in to a twin. The plan included an addition which would greatly expand the footprint of the properties. A number of Mt. Pleasant residents attended and after thorough discussion, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously, 7-0 to not recommend the proposed subdivision plan to the Zoning Hearing Board. The plan now moves to the Zoning Hearing Board and we will wait to see what happens.

St. Davids Golf Club Sidewalks . . . Is it to Nowhere?

November 17, 2009
6 Comments

It seems that the discussion of St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks has stirred some ‘old wounds’. Not understanding why the BAWG report contained an offer of $50,000 from St. Davids Golf Club re the installation of sidewalks, I did some background research. Based on meeting minutes from the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, I think I have been able to piece together a timeline for the St. Davids project. It is important to understand the history of the project to see where we are.

St. Davids Golf Club Timeline:

  • 11/04: St. Davids GC presents Planning Commission with sketch plan for their proposed new country club addition. Following the initial meeting, the Planning Commission discusses the the land development plan at many meetings and on-site visits.
  • 8/05: Sidewalks, Trails & Path Board (STAP) established by Board of Supervisors to review sideswalks, trails, etc.
  • 8/05: Planning Commission approves the final plan for St. Davids project with 8 conditions (including sidewalks). $25,000 was put in to escrow for the sidewalks. STAP would review the sidewalk requirement for the St. Davids project and offer their opinion on materials, size, etc, understanding that the Planning Commission had the final decision.
  • 7/06: STAP makes recommendation re sidewalks at St. Davids – 4-ft wide asphalt path. (As a concession to St. Davids GC, using asphalt would not require curbing and stormwater management. The cost of construction would be far less using asphalt.)
  • 7/06: Planning Commission accepts STAP’s recommendation and St. Davids GC is given 2-year construction timeline, which by my calculations expired in 7/08.
  • 10/08: St. Davids GC comes to Planning Commission and requests reconsideration of ordinance and plan requirements for the sidewalks previously approved in their 2004 application to rebuild the clubhouse. Request denied.

The October 16, 2008 meeting minutes of the Planning Commission are extremely useful to this discussion, here is the link. There was much discussion at this particular meeting from representatives of St. Daivds, Planning Commissioners, neighbors, etc. The final vote was 6-2 against St. Davids GC request.

Now 13-months goes by with no further discussion between St. Davids GC and the Planning Commission. Fastforward and we now have an offer (?) in the BAWG report of $50,000 from St. Davids Golf Club in lieu of building sidewalks? Am I missing something? First off, where did the $50,000 number come from? Was this offer made directly to the BAWG committee; was the offer in writing? I found no reference to this offer anywhere in the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisor meeting minutes.

Aside from not understanding why this sidewalk issue found its way in to the BAWG report, I am troubled by the precedent that can be set by this kind of situation. What does this say to the authority of the Planning Commission? What about future developers working in the township — everyone will want to work in Tredyffrin because each time a land development requirement comes up that they think is ‘too expensive’ and don’t want to do they can just offer the precedent set by St. Davids Golf Club (should the sidewalks decision somehow be changed).

Another question – it appears to me that St. Davids Golf Club has been in default since 7/08 to build the sidewalk. The Planning Commission approved the country club’s project with certain requirements, including the construction of sideswalks. Does St. Davids just get a ‘pass’ . . . and why is the country club not expected to be in compliance as any other developer or contractor? Why should the rules be different for the country club? Again, am I missing something?

I know that I stated that I didn’t want my blog to be political but rather community based, however I’m guessing that there is some behind the scene politics involved with St. Davids and the $50,000 showing up in the BAWG report. Wonder how the Planning Commissioners are feeling about this item in the report, particularly the 6 members who voted against St. David’s request over a year ago? I would hope that the Board of Supervisors supports the decision made by the Planning Commission.

Is this indeed going to be the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’ because St. Davids Golf Club doesn’t have to build it?

St. Davids Sidewalk Required or Not?

November 15, 2009
1 Comment

Whatever happened to the sidewalks that St. Davids Golf Club was required to install with their land development project? Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission told St. Davids that they must install the sidewalks as initially required with the land development plans. I believe that the Township is still holding escrow money not be released until the sidewalks are installed. Wonder how many years ago the St. Davids plan passed? Today I read in the BAWG report that instead of installing the sidewalks there is the suggestion that we accept $50,000 from St. Davids and waive the requirement. It is one thing to make suggestions about revenue sources and future budgets, but are we now allowing the BAWG to change past township decisions? Why the offer of $50,000 – is that St. Davids cost for the sidewalks? Does this decision not impact the Planning Commission’s ability to have their decisions upheld? If the Board of Supervisors agree to this BAWG suggestion, what does that say about future Planning Commission decisions?

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme