Pattye Benson

Community Matters

TESD

What’s the Price of a Hamburger in T/E? Property Taxes to Increase by 3.77%

June 14, 2011
9 Comments

In case you have not heard, the T/E School Board voted to approve the final 2011-12 budget last night . . . and yes folks; the residents of TESD will receive a 3.77% property tax increase. The vote count on the budget was 7-2; Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were the dissenting votes. I guess I should have expected this outcome, but was surprised nonetheless. I left the school board meeting feeling that the decision was preordained and that no amount of discussion was going to change anything.

At the June 1 school board meeting, the school board voted to accept the TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown non-instructional group) union’s agreement amendment for no salary increase for 2011-12. The school board decided not to out-source the custodial service; thus saving $300K in salaries and additionally $150K in overtime costs, for a total of approximately $450K savings to TESD. Many of the custodial staff are T/E residents, so the board decision saved some local jobs.

It was my understanding that at last night’s board meeting, the public would have the details about the custodian outsourcing RFP bidding process – how many custodian companies bid the job, what was the range of their bids, etc. I was disappointed that custodian outsourcing was not on the agenda, nor was there any discussion on the topic. If I want further information, I guess it would require filing a right-to-know request. I am not suggesting that the school board’s choice was incorrect; I just think that the public has a right to know the details pertaining to their decision.

Ray Clarke also attended the meeting last night and I am pleased to offer his notes from the meeting below. You will note that Ray mentions school board member Kevin Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to the cost of ‘hamburgers’. Out of context, his comparison is difficult to understand; so I have included the video clip prepared by Bob Byrne, editor of TE Patch. To understand Buraks comparison of school district property taxes to hamburgers, you will need to click here for the video.

Ray Clark’s T/E School Board Meeting, 6/13/11 Notes

The School Board approved by a 7-2 vote a 2011/12 budget that differed only marginally from the preliminary one, a result of removing the $150,000 contribution from the food service fund, thus increasing the draw from the general fund.

Only Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake were consistent in standing up for taxpayers. (On the other side, though, only Kevin Mahoney, Anne Crowley and Kevin Buraks spoke up for the budget – at their peril, though, see below. And, does Jim Bruce ever contribute anything to important issues?).

The increase results in a millage rate calculated to six significant figures (18.6474), in order (as was stated) to capture every last cent of permissible blood from the taxpayer stone. This despite the points below made by most of the board that spoke – regardless of which way they voted!

1. The amount of year’s tax increase does not change the structural budget problem in subsequent years.

2. There is a $29 million general fund balance, earning next-to-no interest, and which will be depleted by less than 7% under the proposed budget (with another 7% contingency for everything including the kitchen sink).

3. Since the preliminary budget, the district has received $1.2 million of union sacrifices. The taxpayer sees no benefit of those.

4. Since the preliminary budget, the state house and senate are working on bills that will likely restore the >$1 million capricious social security reimbursement cut in Corbett’s budget.

5. The district has consistently over the years held the line at the Act 1 Index increase, up until now.

6. The aggregate metropolitan area is is managing with less than two thirds of T/E’s increase.

Crowley sees the maximum increase for 2011/12 as key to maintaining the education program long term, while Buraks likened the TE educational product to hamburger, priced (tax rate? tax amount? spending per student?) just less than Great Valley’s and more substantially below Lower Merion’s. Since the product is arguably at least as good, we should be just fine with increasing the price. The very same argument that the union have used for years to ratchet up compensation and get us into today’s mess!

Let’s just continue this analogy: People chose to live here because they appreciate hamburgers, and they like the value of T/E’s. Increases beyond the competition’s remove that value. They also like that the other customers share their values and that eating with them at the stand enhances the value of the meal, and indeed they volunteer at the hamburger stand to make the product even better. Nothing whatsoever to do with the amount spent for the burgers themselves. Also remember that T/E’s product is inherently better value because it has made lower cost restaurant location choices than, say, LM, and has better scale in its operations than, say, Radnor, and has more non-consuming commercial interests that contribute to its cost.

Another disappointing item on the “Consent Agenda”: the approval of pricing for contracted services for 2011/12. The Board voted to approve 10 pages of supplier prices for mostly special education services but also many facilities contractors, “orthopedic specialist”, lawyers, “schooldude.com”, etc. etc. This information was in the online agenda, but not in the meeting hand out. Why?

But that’s not the point. From the information presented there was no way to tell how prices compared with this year’s or where the spend is likely to be concentrated. We do know that the architect hourly fees are down and the solicitor costs are flat, but what about the rest? There’s a budget strategy to get supplier costs down – how much did this list contribute to that strategy? There is no indication that the Board received any information on which to base their approval of the pricing. Even though there is no commitment to purchase, this just is not acceptable governance practice.

Also: a) A lot going on in Harrisburg; unpredictable, but tending to shift the balance of power towards districts/taxpayers and away from unions, and b) Facilities wants to move forward with a trial rental of Teamer Field on week-ends, and battle lines seem to be forming.

Random Files: short news updates

June 12, 2011
7 Comments

Tredyffrin’s Special Election Results . . . Chester County Voter Services completed the hand count of the Duffy/Heaberg Special Election ballots from the May 17 primary a couple of weeks ago. Originally, the count indicated Heaberg ahead by 3 votes but a provisional ballot for Duffy was found; 2 votes currently separate the candidates. Due to many malfunctioning voting machines countywide, it is my understanding that voter services has been working overtime to certify the election results by the 30-day deadline on June 17. Look for the results to be certified early this week; word has it that alignment issues with Republican ballots heads the list of possible reasons for the problem. Does make you wonder about prior close elections . . . here’s hoping that whatever the problem, it is thoroughly researched (and corrected) prior to November’s general election.

Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook Shopping Center . . . Empty for a year, we had heard that the Bottom Dollar Grocery chain was going to take the vacant space but that offer fell through. The next development in March of this year, Centro Properties sold 588 shopping centers (including Chesterbrook) to private equity giant, Blackstone Group for $9.4 billion. Although the lease sign remains on Genuardi’s, there has been recent movement in the last few days. Paul Prestia, a local attorney with Ratner Prestia in Westlakes is floating an idea to the community to create a food co-op in the former Genuardi’s space. Using a model similar to Swarthmore Co-op, www.swarthmore.coop/ it would specialize in locally sourced and organic food. This is an interesting redevelopment idea for the Chesterbrook Shopping Center and I will be curious to see if it develops further.

Brian O’Neill . . . the King of Prussia developer behind the Uptown Worthington project in Malvern is back in the news. The O’Neill Properties vs. Citizens Bank trial is slated to begin in December and O’Neill has dramatically reduced his original $billion+ demands down to $297 million. Once the parties reach a settlement, construction is expected to get underway again at Worthington. O’Neill’s vision remains for Uptown Worthington – the ‘Center City of Great Valley’. His vision will require more than the current two stores, Wegnman’s and Target, on the 100+ acres.

T/E School Budget . . . The TESD school board makes the final 2011-12 budget vote on Monday night, June 13, 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School. Property tax increase is projected at 3.8%. Click here for the agenda.

EIT Tax Study Group . . . Applications are still being accepted from Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for the TESD EIT Tax Study Group – deadline for applications is Wednesday, June 15. The TESD Public Information meeting is Tuesday, June 14 and the selection process will be discussed. There are to be 9 committee members chosen and my understanding is that 100 applications have been received to date. Click here for the application. The success of the tax study group depends on a non-political selection process and committee membership.

HARB no more . . . As of the May Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Tredyffrin’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) was replaced by a Historic Commission. With an expanding mission to protect historic properties in the township, I was pleased that supervisors showed their support of preserving the township’s historic resources with a unanimous vote. I am expecting great things from our new commission, and am excited to be part of it.

Planning Commission – Where’s the Sidewalk Ordinance amendment on your agenda . . . I was very surprised to see that the sidewalk ordinance discussion is off this week’s Planning Commission agenda. The proposed ordinance amendment establishes the criteria for the requirement to construct sidewalks and establish a fee in lieu of construction procedure and is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, June 20. Having attended the last Planning Commission meeting, it appeared commissioners had not reached a consensus on the ordinance, so why is it off the agenda for their meeting?

For those that may have forgotten, the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue remains outstanding since December 2009. The land development agreement between the township and St. Davids requiring sidewalks is now 4 or 5 (?) years old and yet the clock continues to tick (and tick, and tick). Whose responsibility is to enforce the sidewalks at St. Davids? It is now eighteen months since the St. Davids sidewalk issue was ‘set aside’ by Tredyffrin’s supervisors and, to date there remains no resolution in the matter.

Is the sidewalk issue going to be the 2011 supervisor campaign issue, as the 422 issue was to the 2010 State House race? Adding a new twist to the continuing sidewalk saga, supervisor Paul Olson (R) is up for re-election from the eastern district. Having served as supervisor for 30 years, he is on record as opposing the St. Davids sidewalk; proclaiming it the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’. Olson’s opponent in the supervisor race, Tory Snyder (D) is a Planning Commissioner and served as chair of the sidewalks subcommittee. She supports the green routes network and the sidewalks component of the township’s comprehensive plan. Olson and Snyder are scheduled to square off against each other in November’s general election.

Valley View Shopping Center . . . If you haven’t driven down this section of 252 lately, you might be surprised at the level of activity. The redevelopment of the old Bargain Bookstore is well underway; it appears that they are gutting both floors of the building for a new branch of Mealey’s Furniture. In the same shopping center, the old Charlie Brown Restaurant is undergoing much change for its transformation in to a new McKenzie Brew House. Originally slated for completion in September, signs point that the microbrewery is on schedule.

The Clock is Ticking Down for T/E School Budget . . . Will Property Tax Increase be the Highest of our Neighbors

June 9, 2011
33 Comments

The clock is ticking down . . . the T/E School Board votes on the final budget for 2011-12 on Monday, June 13, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. The preliminary school budget contained a property tax increase of 3.8%. Will that tax increase remain in the final budget or is possible that the school board members may consider a lower increase?

The school board and the administration have battled their way through the 2011-12 budget since last fall, with regular school board meetings as well as finance and special budget meetings. The board and administration thoroughly reviewed many budget strategies and made difficult educational and programming decisions. The school district reached agreements for the 2011-12 school year with the teachers union (TEEA) and with the non-instructional union (TENIG). In the spirit of shared sacrifice, union members from TEEA and TENIG showed their support for the school district and agreed to a variation of a salary freeze to help the bottom line of the District’s 2011-12 budget.

According to the TEEA agreement with the T/E school district, the teachers will have their salaries frozen for the first 6 months of the 2011-12 school year based on their final paycheck of the 2010-11 school year. As part of the agreement, TESD agreed there would be no involuntary furloughing or involuntary demotion of teachers for 2011-12. The cost savings for the TEEA agreement is approximately $1 Million to the school district.

The agreement reached between TENIG and TESD is a zero percent wage increase for the 2011-12 school year. The savings to the school district with TENIG’s salary freeze is $300K. Adding the additional reduced overtime wages and the total TENIG savings to the District is approximately $450K.

The school board members applauded the efforts of TEEA and TENIG . . . the combined total help from the two unions represents nearly $1.5 million in savings to the school district.

Here’s my question . . . given the substantial level of savings, due to TEEA and TENIG’s spirit of shared sacrifice, will the school board also recognize the ongoing sacrifices of the taxpayers in this school district? Will the school board consider a reduction in the proposed 3.8% property tax increase? The preliminary 2011-12 budget could not predict the $1.5 million savings from the unions, so should the taxpayers expect the final budget to reflect those savings? I believe that the 3.8% includes taking the full Act 1 exemptions but maybe in light of the union savings, the percentage increase could be reduced.

In anticipation of TESD’s final budget vote on Monday, I thought it would be interesting to see where the currently projected 3.8% property tax increase measures up against other local school districts. I think that it is fair to use Radnor, Lower Merion and Great Valley school districts for comparison. Generally speaking, these school districts are comparable in level of education quality and I would think that the economic climate of the taxpayers is similar. Each of these school districts has approved their final budgets —

  • Radnor Township School District – 1.4% tax increase Lowest RDSD tax increase in years. RTSD credited the Radnor teachers’ sacrifice in reaching a contract agreement for the low tax increase.
  • Great Valley School District – 2.9% tax increase GVSD Superintendent Alan Lonoconus, said of the tax increase, “We tried very hard this year to make sure the impact to programs was as gentle as possible. But we also kept in mind the economic conditions not only of our district, but of the nation.”
  • Lower Merion School District – 3.3% tax increase Lowest tax increase since 1984-84 fiscal year

Although not an adjacent school district and perhaps not as highly ranked academically as Radnor, Great Valley, Lower Merion and T/E school districts, I was fascinated by West Chester School District’s final budget decision —

  • West Chester School District – NO tax increase. The 0 percent tax increase balanced WCSD budget by taking $3 million from their fund balance.

It is not surprising that the taxpayers of WCSD overwhelming supported the decision of their school board leaders not to increase taxes. In reviewing the demands of their school budget over the last months, there was much discussion between school board members and residents in regard to the severe economic conditions facing the residents, rising gas prices, high unemployment, etc. Many taxpayers in the WCSD complained that they are already financially pushed to the limit — the 0 percent tax increase decision came as welcomed news.

As it now stands, unless the T/E school board members reconsider, a property tax increase of 3.8% is on the table for a vote at Monday night’s school board meeting; this increase will represent the highest increase among our neighbors. TESD is a great school district, and one for which we all can be proud, but likewise could be said for Lower Merion, Great Valley and Radnor school districts. My guess is that the argument that some will make is that TESD currently has a lower tax rate than these other mentioned school districts and therefore taxpayers are in a better position to afford the tax increase. Correct?

I have not done a research analysis but I believe that TESD may have the highest fund balance of any of these neighboring school districts. (In fact, I think I read somewhere that TESD fund balance is one of the highest in the state). Some could argue that the fund balance represents over-taxing of residents in prior years, so . . . now that the taxpayers of this community need financial relief can we ask that the TESD use more of the reserve and lessen our property tax increase?

To help the community, the teachers, secretaries, custodians, cooks and maintenance personnel in this school district have shown us the meaning of shared sacrifice. Is it possible that TESD will acknowledge the sacrifices of the District taxpayers, and lower the expected property tax increase? Or, is this just wishful thinking on my part . . . ?

Reserve Funds Exceeding $3 Billion in PA Schools . . . But how Long Can School Districts Depend on Reserves to Balance Budgets?

June 3, 2011
1 Comment

There is an interesting report out this week about Pennsylvania schools, which states that schools across the state are holding more than $3 billion in reserve funds.

There is an ongoing debate about drawing from fund balances to balance school budgets, particularly in light of the current economic crisis. We have seen in the past 6 months of budget discussions that T/E School District is no different.

However, striking a balance between holding onto a buffer in the school district fund balance and increasing taxes doesn’t make for easy school board decisions. Some taxpayers have argued in the past, that the district fund balance in T/E is too large and that it represents past overtaxing of residents.

When looking at Gov. Corbett’s state education funding cuts and the rising costs to maintain teacher pensions, TESD finds itself in an enviable position — a school district that has a positive fund balance. Of course, when you look at the 5-year plan and pension costs, it is evident how quickly the funding buffer will disappear. So although TESD has a substantial fund balance, the pension contributions going forward will deplete the fund unless there is help from the state.

Question, should school districts be forced to use their fund balances to help make up the funding deficit from the state? Should the state be required to help school districts with the pension crisis or face the bankruptcy of school districts that cannot afford their contributions?

There are some interesting fund balance statistics from school districts around the state – here is the article in case you missed it.

Schools hold more than $3 billion in reserve funds — At least $1.7 billion may be set aside for pensions, bond ratings
By Darwyyn Deyo | PA Independent

HARRISBURG — Schools across Pennsylvania hold more than $2.8 billion in reserve funds, but legislators and school boards disagree about whether the money can be spent to buffer against proposed state government cuts this year.

The reserve funds are divided into two categories — designated and undesignated. The undesignated funds are not committed to any planned project. Designated funds and any other funds, such as capital reserves, are allocated to specific projects, such as new buildings.

School districts are required by state law to keep 5 percent of their annual spending in the undesignated reserve funds to preserve bond ratings. The Pennsylvania School Board Association, or PSBA, an association of school boards in the state, said that as recently as 2008-2009, 345 of the state’s 500 school districts had more than 10 percent of their spending in their reserve funds — more than double the expected amount.

Of those 345 districts, 223 districts held in excess of 15 percent. Out of the 500 school districts, 259 school districts saw their undesignated reserve funds increase in 2009-2010.

While many districts are holding plenty of cash in reserve, the number of districts with drained reserve funds is increasing. In 2008-2009, 14 school districts held a negative fund balance. The districts had overdrawn the undesignated funds for other purposes and had not repaid the money. In 2009-10, the number of overdrawn schools districts increased to 37.

The negative funds ranged from $64,217 at Farrell Area School District in Mercer County to more than $32.7 million at Philadelphia School District.

In undesignated reserve funds, the school districts – not including charter schools or other special programs – held more than $1.7 billion, which theoretically could be used for everything. In 2008-2009, school districts held $1.64 billion in undesignated reserve funds.

The data, said David Davare, director of research for the PSBA, is from this past year’s balance sheets, so there is no indication yet on whether school districts dipped into the reserve this year and further depleted the savings. “That number that was just released … was based on the school year that ended last June 30,” said Davare. “In 2008-2009, 156 districts consumed some portion of their fund balance as part of the school operations … so I don’t know how many districts planned on consuming (their) fund balance based on the current year.”

Blackhawk School District in Beaver County holds the least amount in undesignated reserve funds with $28,799. Delaware School District in Pike County held the most with more than $9 million.

State Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks, chairman of the House Education Committee, said he would be open to school districts using undesignated reserve funds to help restore some of the funds that have been trimmed from the state’s education budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year. The state is proposing spending $10.19 billion on education, compared to the $10.77 billion it spent for fiscal year 2010-11.

“Yes, I would use it cautiously,” said Clymer. “Going to the limit — these dollars have to be held in reserve. Those that can do it and not risk the surplus they have accrued over the years, I would support that. It can only go so far and they will hit the required level as required by the school codes” for bond ratings.

State Rep. James Roebuck, D-Philadelphia, minority chairman of the House Education Committee, took the opposite view and argued that the state government still has to provide a “thorough and efficient” public education system, as outlined in the state constitution.

Using reserve funds “shouldn’t necessarily be predicated upon the individual districts coming up with money to do what the state is supposed to do,” said Roebuck. “The state has reduced, substantially, its commitment to public education and done away with significant initiatives that underwrite things like full-day kindergarten, dual enrollment to transition from basic to higher education,” he said.

Beth Winters, director of legislative services for the PSBA, pointed to the upcoming pension spike as a reason not to spend the reserve fund dollars now. By 2028, school districts face paying $30.6 million into the Public School Employees Retirement System, a contribution that will increase to $36 million by 2032.

“If you actually take a look at the public pension and special education costs, those fund balances will be depleted,” said Winters. “School districts are looking at this from a long-term basis, and if you look at the pension numbers, we’re going to have 20 years of double digit pension contributions (that) employers are going to make. … Those fund balances are to cover those costs.”

Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Republicans, said “school districts’ undesignated reserve funds will receive a good deal of focus during the ongoing budget discussions.”

The state Senate has opposed the education cuts proposed budget.

Calling Applicants for T/E Citizen Earned Income Tax Study Group . . . Can its Membership be Apolitical?

May 17, 2011
3 Comments

We learned at the last T/E School Board meeting that the school board had decided to create a citizen Tax Study Group to study the Earned Income Tax (EIT). Postcards with details concerning the application process were mailed and I received mine today. The Tax Study Group is open to Tredyffrin and Easttown residents and the group is charged with researching the pros and cons of an EIT. The group will meeting up to eight times through September and October and then present their findings to the school board and to the community.

According to the post card, interested residents are asked to complete the Tax Study Group application online at www.tesd.net by June 15, 2011. Community members chosen will be notified after June 21. Seeking to include a diverse group of residents, questions on the application range from level of applicant’s education; children in the district; to employment status (whether you work in the school district or not, retired, etc.). Applicants are also asked why they wish to be considered for the Tax Study Group and what specific expertise you would bring to the study group.

A discussion point presented at the school board meeting, but not mentioned on the application, is in regards insuring that members of the Tax Study Group selected are apolitical. To explain, school board member Kevin Mahoney suggested that the Tax Study Group needs to be apolitical; no political candidates or elected officials should not be included in the group. However, I note that there is no mention of that point on the postcard or on the application. I support Mahoney’s suggestion, and believe for the EIT process and discussion to be the most valuable it should exclude a political bias.

I have a few questions about the Tax Study Group that is not available on the school district website – How many residents will be on the Tax Study Group? Will members include a balance of Easttown and Tredyffrin residents? What is the exact selection process and criteria? At the school board meeting, it was announced that the study group would not include any school board members, but will they make the selection of the study group members? I want the selection process and the membership of the study group to be apolitical (as was suggested) how will the school board seek to achieve this goal?

Milestone Agreement Between T/E Teachers and School District: Is it a ‘Salary Freeze’ or a ‘Pay Waiver’. . . Does it Really Matter What We Call It?

May 10, 2011
10 Comments

There was a milestone agreement between the T/E teachers and the school district last night. I am not sure whether we call the TEEA-TESD agreement a salary ‘freeze’ or a ‘pay waiver’ but, . . . if both sides are happy, does it really matter what we call it?

The school board members presented the details of the new teacher union offer. The offer from Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) was read and the discussion opened for public questions. The board voted on the proposal and the agreement won unanimous support from the school board.

To read a copy of the TEEA-TESD agreement, click here. If I understand the agreement, here are the important points:

  • The teachers will have their salaries frozen for the first 6 months of the 2011-12 school year based on their final paycheck of the 2010-11 school year.
  • For the second 6 months of the 2011-12 school year, the teachers salaries will ‘unfreeze’ and they will advance.
  • With this agreement, the T/E school district agrees there will be no involuntary furloughing or involuntary demotion of teachers for 2011-12.
  • This agreement is a one-time cost savings for the 2011-12 school year only and is not precedent setting. The agreement does not extend the current contract and negotiations for the next contract will be on schedule.

I asked Pete DePiano, union president of TEEA for his thoughts on the TEEA-TESD agreement. He writes,

“I am so proud of the membership of TEEA for stepping up with this offer during these difficult times. Likewise, I am happy that the Board was able to accept. A special note of gratitude must be extended to Mrs. Cruickshank, for we were in constant communication behind the scenes for a VERY long time working on this – even prior to the Corbett announcement. It was that continued line of open dialogue that made this all possible. We are looking forward to a wonderful conclusion of the school year as we continue to serve the greatest students in the greatest district in the Commonwealth of PA.”

Pete DePiano
President, TEEA

______________________________________________________

Ray Clarke attended last night’s school board meeting and at my request kindly shares his thoughts below.

Re the Earned Income Tax Study Group, I want to personally thank Kevin Mahoney for suggesting that the group members be apolitical. The school board members made it clear that no one from the school board would be on the study group and I applaud their efforts in making the selection process open and transparent!

Important developments at tonight’s School Board meeting
  1. The Board voted to accept an offer from the TEEA to defer next year’s contracted pay increase for six months with no change to the contract termination date. After six months, salaries will increase to the contracted 2011/12 levels, with step and level movement. There will be no furloughs or demotions during 2011/12, and 2012 retirees will be protected. This is expected to save the District $917,000 in 2011/12. The five year model, which assumes no salary increase in the next contract, claimed that these savings versus the previous projection continue into the out years – although I remain puzzled about that, since the matrix and distribution in place at 6/30/2012 is unchanged under the offer. It may be important to understand expectations on this going into the next contract negotiations.
  2. The impact on next year’s budget is fairly clear, though. The board approved a budget that has a 3.8% property tax increase and a $2.2 million draw down of the fund balance, with an additional $1.9 million possible in the event of specific contingencies. There was no appetite for an Activity Fee for next year, and very different philosophies from all Board members that spoke. Only Kevin Buraks voted against an amendment to remove it from the preliminary budget. Worth looking at the tape to review the issues.
  3. The Board defined the process for obtaining citizen input on the pros and cons of an EIT, through a Tax Study Group. They will select 9 residents for the Group based on information to be requested in a May 16th mailing to residents. Work to be completed by October, for a November decision by the Board whether to move the process forward towards an April 2012 referendum. Important difference from the 2006 effort: the group’s role is not to present a recommendation, but to help educate the Board and the public. The Board is looking for representation from across T/E, and wants the group to be apolitical. All meetings to be open to the public; not sure if that’s very conducive to a deep dive into the economics, but maybe that’s not the purpose.
  4. Per Dr Brake’s legislative report, there seems to be some likelihood that the Legislature will reverse or limit the Governor’s proposed capricious Social Security reimbursement cut, so that may help TESD’s budget (at best, by $1 million). It also seems probable that the local ability to increase taxes beyond the Act 1 limit will not be completely eliminated, retaining at least the possibility of PSERS and special education Exceptions.
A final pet peeve: once again this year the gaming rebate was used in the context of an offset to the property tax increase. If the rebate was increasing by $171 that would be true, but in fact it’s just the same ~$180 it has been for every year since 2008/9. At least it wasn’t Dr Waters this time, but rather Dr Brake, who I thought might know better.

Expecting Good News for Public and Higher Education in House GOP Budget Next Week . . . Welfare Programs Not so Lucky

May 7, 2011
1 Comment

According to John Micek of the Morning Call, www.morningcall.com the state House will introduce a $27.3 billion budget plan next week that contains good news for public and higher education but the state’s public welfare programs are not so lucky.

Here are some noteworthy items expected in the House GOP budget unveiling next week:

  • The budget will trim $470 million from public welfare programs. Social service programs aid veterans, abused children, the elderly and the mentally ill. Taking funding from the welfare programs but restoring some of the public and higher education funding is a bit like “robbing Peter to pay Paul”; a reshuffle of the allocations.
  • $43 million to help school districts meet their Social Security payments.
  • Increase state public education funding by $210 million for kindergarten through 12th grade. The budget funding should restore school district funding to the 2008-09 level (pre-stimulus money).
  • $100 million appropriated for ‘Accountability Block Grants’ which school districts use to fund after-school tutoring. (The program was eliminated in Corbett’s proposed budget) This could be good news for T/E school district . . . after-school tutoring (value $85K) was on the budget strategy list. In fact, FLITE has been working on fundraising to keep the program.
  • It is expected that next week’s budget announcement will include restoring some of the funding to the state’s higher education – If you recall Corbett’s proposed budget slashed higher education funding by 50 percent. Apparently, there has been a change of heart in Harrisburg and higher education will see an increase of funding of $380 million in next week’s budget. There is good news expected for Temple, Lincoln, Pitt and Penn State Universities when the budget is unveiled; these four universities will see their funding going up and they should receive 75 percent of their current level.

I am going to be curious to see how the better-than-expected general fund collection surplus plays in to the budget. The fiscal-year information released this week indicates the current surplus at $506 million. In the remaining two months in the state’s fiscal year, the surplus could grow even further – some are suggesting the surplus may grow to nearly $600 million.

How will Harrisburg use the unexpected $500+ million surplus? I would like to see some of this ‘found’ money help restore public education funding cut by Corbett’s proposed budget . . . making education a priority in Pennsylvania. It appears that Corbett and some of the top leadership of his own party is at odds over what to do with the surplus in the current fiscal year. Corbett wants to place the $500 million surplus in reserve and continue with the proposed cuts. However, the majority of the Senate Republicans disagrees and wants at least some of the surplus to restore cuts in the budget proposal, including public education.

T/E Teachers Union President Helps Clarify Original Salary Freeze Offer

May 6, 2011
4 Comments

Struggling to understand the offer that was made by the teachers union, TEEA to the T/E School Board, I sent an email to Pete DePiano, asking for clarification. Below is my email and DePiano’s official response. I accept that because the offer was rejected by the school board, the original offer is now somewhat a moot point.

We understand that other school districts across Pennsylvania are struggling with similar budget shortfalls as the T/E School District and we read of other school boards accepting ‘salary freeze’ offers from their teachers. The confusion over the definition of salary freeze and pay increase waiver has led many in the public to question why the T/E school board did not accept TEEA’s offer. If nothing else, the continued dialogue on Community Matters is helping us to better understand the nuances that exist in the discussion.

It certainly is not (nor has it ever been) my attempt to create any additional friction between the teachers and the school board. I, like many in the community, am struggling to understand the school district budget, the strategies to fund the budget shortfall and what role the teacher’s contract may play in those discussions. I want there to exist a good working relationship between TEEA and TESD . . . feeling that if the communication between these two groups remains open and honest, the outcome will be all the better for the kids (and the taxpayers).

My email to Pete DePiano, TEEA president:

There continues to be misunderstanding of TEEA’s salary freeze offer. Although I asked you to clarify the salary freeze offer and I thought that I understood, maybe I’m the one who is confused. Here’s a very simple scenario and please tell me if my understanding is correct:

You have a 3-year contract with 3 steps:
Year 1: Step 1
Year 2: Step 2
Year 3: Step 3
Teachers accept a pay freeze for Year 3

As a result:
Year 1: Step 1
Year 2: Step 2
Year 3: Step 2
Year 4: Step 3

Under the ‘pay freeze’, teachers receive the pay raise that they were to receive in Year 3 in Year 4. The 3-year contract is extended to 4 years. The teachers receive 3 steps (raises) in 4 years. Is this correct interpretation – please comment. I want the public (and myself) to fully understand what TEEA offered to TESD.

Response from Pete DePiano, TEEA president:

“Thank you for the opportunity to clarify:

The offer [though a moot point now] was a step freeze for one year, then a continuation of the final year in 2012-13. There was NEVER any suggestion of a “double” step move.

Your example of step 1, step 2, step 2, step 3 is the correct interpretation.”

Countdown to Primary Election May 17 – T/E School Board Candidates Resumes

May 2, 2011
1 Comment

The Pennsylvania Primary Election is 3 weeks from tomorrow — Tuesday, May 17, 2011. As I previously announced on April 11, I will provide all the candidates resumes on Community Matters. I hope that by providing in-depth information on local candidates will encourage increased voter turnout for the Pennsylvania Primary Election. Historically, voter turnout in Tredyffrin Township has been low for the Primary Election, (particularly in a non-presidential year) — here’s hoping that trend will change on May 17.

Currently serving School Board members Karen Cruickshank, Jim Bruce and Pete Motel are seeking re-election. Two of the current school board members, Debbie Bookstaber and Kevin Mahoney have decided not to see re-election.

The School Board candidates for the Primary Election are listed below. (Click on candidates names to read their resumes). It is my understanding that all school board candidates have cross-filed as both Republican and Democratic candidates. Easttown candidate Craig Lewis was contacted and invited to supply his resume but he failed to respond. If Mr. Lewis would like to have his resume included with the other candidate resumes, I would be happy to add it.

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates:

  • Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel (R) **
  • Easttown, Region 3: Craig Lewis (D) No Response from Candidate

** Incumbent

There’s Money in Naming Rights for School District Athletic Fields, Concession Stands, Auditoriums, etc. – T/E Explores the Possibilities

April 26, 2011
6 Comments

I attended last night’s School Board meeting, primarily for the presentation from Market Street Sports Group, a marketing advertising company from Lancaster County specializing in event sponsorships and ‘naming rights’ opportunities. Two Market Street representatives, Frank Hoke and Tracey Brubaker, explained that they have worked with various school districts using Hempfield School District in Lancaster County as an example and one of their clients. Through corporate sponsorships and naming rights on fields, concession stands, etc. the company raises additional funds for their clients.

The Market Street presentation answered some of the advertising and marketing questions. The school board would retain final approval on all corporate partners, proposals and contracts. Certain types of advertising is prohibited including advertising of lotteries, promotion of the sale or use of alcohol or tobacco products plus any service, product or point of view that is not acceptable to the school board. The Market Street Sports Group process includes creating an inventory of available resources for naming rights. Signage strategically placed in certain approved areas of schools, athletic fields, gyms, concession stands, auditoriums, or cafeterias are some possible naming locations.

Naming rights and signage can be lucrative to school districts – representatives cited that Hempfield School District earns $100-130K per year with various naming opportunities. A specific example was a banner over the concession stand on one of the school fields earns $30K for a 3-year contract, $10K per year. The cost of doing business with Market Street Sports Group does come with a price – a commission rate of 30%. As explained, the first 10% goes to the sales rep at Market Street (for selling the sponsorships), the next 10% to the local TESD representative and the final 10% to overhead costs (billing sponsors on monthly basis, credit card fees, etc.) The process involves more than just hanging a banner on a field – the sponsors require value for their marketing dollars as well as the school districts gaining additional funding. Through ‘active engagement’, the sponsors reach customers in a specific demographic area through public address announcements, website advertising, promotions and giveaways at sporting events, etc.

Hoke, who serves as chief financial officer of Market Street, was asked if the 30% commission rate was negotiable and his response was vague and not positive. An audience member who quickly Googled the Hempfield School District (which was used as an example by Market Street) suggested that the average income level in Hempfield was probably half of the average income level in T/E. She suggested that the T/E community had the capacity for making more money for Market Street (with no greater effort) so perhaps that should be considered when looking at the commission rate. Although the representatives were polite, I am not certain that the 30% would be negotiable.

School directors questioned how Market Street would find (and hire) a local representative in the TESD. Working with the school district and administration, the company would look for a community person interested in part-time work and extra money – possibly a TESD teacher. It was important the person be a local hire, someone who understood the area as Market Street Sports Group is from Lancaster County.

School board member Anne Crowley questioned the company representatives on how they handle competing local companies that might want to participate in naming opportunities, such as three dry cleaners. Market Street sales rep Tracey Brubaker offered that this competing situation had never occurred and if it did would be solved ‘creatively’. Brubaker’s response was not satisfactory; her suggestion that this situation had never occurred seemed unlikely. Well, I think I understand why – after a bit of research, I determined that Brubaker only joined Market Street Sports Group last month. In her 5 weeks with the company, my guess is that the situation of competing advertisers has not occurred but I believe does require further consideration.

The presentation from Market Street Sports Group was interesting. However, I think it was obvious to the school board and members of the audience that this topic will require further study and discussion.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme