Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 6 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

At the T/E School Board meeting last night, there were a number of questions from residents about the District’s finances, budget process, etc. including a question that I asked about the status of the $1.2 million accounting error. If you recall four months ago, on June 11, the school board voted 6-3 for the District to take responsibility for the error and to correct the District audits and AFRs (annual financial reports) for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

It is now over 4 months since the school board voted to direct the District to correct the audit and AFRs but neither the board nor the administration has provided an update on this important accounting issue. Although the business manager bristled at my use of “accounting error” (what else should you call it?) after some back and fro between the school board president and the business manager, the upshot was that it should be completed by November 15 – 5 months since the vote took place.

Facing a lengthy agenda, I left the meeting about 9 PM. However at the end of the meeting, there was school board discussion about a letter from Maillie LLP, the District’s auditing firm. It was agreed that the letter would be made available to the public. So … today at least two residents reported they went to the Administration Building and were told that the letter would be released on Friday. It was impossible for me to understand WHY it should take four additional days for the letter to be released – was it because the contents of the letter needed to be slow-rolled in advance of Election Day on Nov. 5?

As luck would have it, we don’t have to wait until Friday – I have a copy of the October 16 letter written by Edward Furman, CPA from Maillie. From my vantage point, it looks like the District business manager has a lot of explaining to do about the $1.2 million accounting error and the timeline – some of his stories are not lining up! Furman’s letter contains extremely important financial information related to the $1.2 million accounting error but I leave the specifics of what it all means to our “financial experts”.

No Planning Commission Approval for $40 Million Conestoga High School Expansion Project … Proposed Parking Lot Major Stumbling Block … Residents Voice Objections

October 18, 2019

12 Comments

I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night specifically for high school expansion plan — T/E School District was seeking preliminary/final land development approval for the project. The District tried to sell their proposed high school expansion plan, which includes the removal of 200 trees from a wooded lot for a 128 space parking lot on Irish Road. The District came armed with their experts – consultant, architect, stormwater, traffic, attorney and the business manager Art McDonnell.

The neighbors to the proposed project did their homework were organized and prepared to battle back – including two transportation engineers from the neighborhood! The majority of the residents supported the high school expansion project itself; it was the proposed parking lot that was their focus – and the associated stormwater, traffic, safety, environmental, etc. issues. Once again, I was impressed by our community members!

Throughout the to and fro of the three hours of debate, certain facts became clear – (1) the lack of notification to the neighbors of meetings, specifically the Zoning Hearing Board meeting; (2) unclear information about the retaining wall, no specifics and height range of 3 ft. to 10 ft.; (3) a debate of actual need/use of parking lot, whether for staff or students; (4) opposing traffic study information between District and residents; and (5) outdated CHS expansion plans on District website. Many residents complained bitterly that the District and School Board had rushed to approve the expansion plan without adequate input from the community.

I stayed until 10 PM but the discussion continued until 11 PM. I have since learned that the Planning Commission did NOT grant preliminary/final land development approval on the project; several of the planning commissioners voicing personal concern about the parking lot, associated issues and unanswered questions. As I understand it the upshot was that the District needed to re-design the parking lot, specifically reducing the number of parking spaces and perhaps moving the lot closer to the school – this would lessen the number of trees to be removed.

The change to the number of parking spaces will require the District to go back to the Zoning Hearing Board (Wednesday, Nov. 20) and back to the Planning Commission (Thursday, Nov. 21). For those who attended the Planning Commission last night, I encourage you to add to the commentary.

Although the vast majority of residents in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting support the high school expansion project (just not the parking lot), as I mentioned there are some in the community who feel that proposed plan was push through too quickly and without sufficient community input.

One community member who feels the value (and associated costs) of the high school project needs scrutiny is Neal Colligan, a resident and commercial real estate expert. Neal attended the District’s Facility meeting earlier this week and offers the following op-ed:

I was at the Facilities Committee the other night and wanted to share some of my thoughts on the proposed budget for the High School expansion renovation. As a “real estate” guy; I’m trying to put this into the context of commercial real estate costs/values. We’re lucky to have something to compare this to in the local community as the Woodlynde School is doing a similar expansion at this time and they’ve shared some information on their website. Let’s look at these two projects:

Woodlynde – Their expansion project will deliver: a new glass-enclosed atrium; a dining hall/program/performance space (168 people expandable to 256); 6 classrooms; a music studio; an emerging technology space; 4 new flex offices; 3 learning centers; a faculty lounge and 70 new parking spots with re-designed traffic flows. That’s 17 new spaces for learning and that project is underway today. Total costs $10.8 MM.

Conestoga – This expansion includes a glass-enclosed atrium; 11 new classrooms; 3 Special Education classrooms; 4 science labs; 1 FCS room; 1 art room; 7 flex rooms and 128 parking spaces. That’s 27 new learning spaces. The cost for this project is $39.6 MM.

While never truly “Apples to Apples”-this is pretty close as both projects are being built in Tredyffrin on land already owned by the institution. To be fair in comparison, the Conestoga project includes $6 MM in upgrades to other parts of the High School so we should look at total costs of $33.6 MM. I don’t know how many square feet Woodlynde is adding so I can’t really compare on a SF basis. We can compare in other ways. Per learning space: Woodlynde – $635,294/space; Conestoga – $1,244,444/space. On an absolute cost basis, the Conestoga project is 3X the cost of the Woodlynde project. Conestoga will end up with 1.6 X new learning spaces and 1.8 X the number of parking spaces.

The question is: are we getting VALUE? At a cost of $33.6 MM for 64,446 SF of new space: the per SF cost is $521/SF. This is an eye-catching number in commercial real estate. A project at 7 Tower Bridge was recently announced in Conshohocken. At $112 MM for 260,000 SF of Class A office or $431/SF- this will be one of (if not THE) most expensive projects in the Philadelphia suburbs ever. But, there’s good reason, the largest Philadelphia investment bank has agreed to lease half of the building at, likely, the highest rental rate in the region. That’s economics driving the cost of the project.

What’s driving the costs of the Conestoga High School project and IS this the right amount to spend? It’s easy to get numb to the numbers … $30 million, $35 million, $40 million … they’re just numbers BUT they’re BIG numbers. Who’s in charge of being the governor on these costs? The architect/engineer is normally paid on a percentage of total cost … they’re not the governor. The Administration? What’s their responsibility to control costs; they want NICE stuff? The Board? Their conversations have focused on needs and design and additions to the plan. So … who’s looking at the all-in costs? Who’s comparing this to what “Real Estate” should cost?

Final Land Development Approval Sought at Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, Oct. 17 for High School Expansion Plan + Proposed Parking Lot on Irish Road — Will Stormwater Runoff be Adequately Managed for the Neighborhood?

October 14, 2019

32 Comments

On the Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission agenda for Thursday, Oct. 17, 7 PM is the preliminary/final land development application for the Conestoga High School expansion. The proposal expands the existing high school (216,000 sq. ft.) with a two story addition (approx. 40,500 sq. ft.)

For those that live in the area of the high school, this is an important meeting to attend — as another component of the T/E School District’s expansion plan includes a new parking lot (with 128 spaces) on Irish Road plus a bus pull-off.

We know that rainwater does not percolate into impervious surfaces but runs off instead. The proposed parking lot requires the removal of many trees from its wooded lot. Imperious surface is the primary contributor to stormwater runoff and is a major contributor to flooding … what stormwater impact can neighbors expect as a result of the proposed parking lot? Will the stormwater runoff from the parking lot be adequately managed? And going forward, who has oversight of the stormwater situation once the parking lot is completed – the school district or the township?

Residents in the high school area (particularly Irish Road, Lizbeth Lane and Oak Lane) have suffered with major stormwater and flooding issues for years – if you know the area, many homes in the neighborhood sit downhill from the proposed high school expansion project and parking lot. Such a large land development project, which includes the removal of many trees, is certain to impact a community already impacted by stormwater runoff problems and stormwater issues.

Residents are encouraged to attend the Planning Commission and make their concerns known. Mitigating and preventing flooding and erosion of their properties must include stormwater runoff as a critical part of the approval of the high school expansion project, particularly the parking lot component. Neighbors cannot afford further damage and possible devaluation of property as a result of severe stormwater runoff issues.

In addition to increased stormwater runoff issues related to the proposed parking lot on Irish Road – residents need to bring their safety, traffic, lighting, etc. concerns to the Planning Commission meeting. The proposed expansion plan and parking lot needs to be fully vetted by the planning commissioners before granting final land development approval.

T/E School District goes from a $1.5 Million Deficit to having a $4 Million Surplus Four Months Later – A $5.5 Million Discrepancy! How is this Possible Mr. Business Manager?

October 10, 2019

54 Comments

How is it possible that in June, the TESD Business Manager claimed a projected deficit of $1.5 million for the 2018-19 year and then based on that, the taxpayers received a 3.91% tax increase for 2019-20? Then fast forward less than four months later and this same Business Manager tells the school board at the Finance Committee meeting this week that not only did the District not have a deficit for the 2018-19 year but instead it magically had a $4 million surplus — A $5.5 Million discrepancy! How is this possible?

In the T/E School District, residents have faced annual tax increases for the last fifteen years. If you recall, in mid-December 2018, the District first presented the 2019-20 budget with a proposed 6.1% tax increase and that 6.1% increase hung over taxpayers heads for six months! Finally in June the proposed tax increase was lowered and the school board approved a 3.91% increase. And with the 3.91% tax increase, our school district received a special distinction … we had the second highest tax increase in the Philly region!

Do you fully understand what happened? To recap … from December 2018 to June 2019, taxpayers were faced with a 6.1% tax increase. In June 2019, taxpayers ended up with 3.91% tax increase due to a projected deficit of $1.5 million. Now four months later, the taxpayers are told that the District didn’t end up with a deficit after all. Nope, actually the 2018-19 year ended with a $4 million surplus. Again, I ask why is there a $5.5 million discrepancy and and why did taxpayers receive a 3.91% tax increase?

I don’t know about you, but as a taxpayer I find the “fuzzy math” approach wholly unacceptable! And let’s not forget, the Business Manager received a new 5-year contract starting July 1, 2019 with a base salary of $210K plus annual raises and bonuses. Oh, and he is also the responsible party for the $1.2 million accounting error from the year before; which to date remains unresolved (although the Board voted to have the Business Manager make the correction months ago). As a top-notch school district, don’t the taxpayers of T/E School District deserve better?

Although I did not attend the Finance Committee meeting, I watched the video (the District does not tape Finance Committee meetings but fortunately residents now do!) Neal Colligan did attend the meeting and provides the following commentary.

It appears to me that taxpayers should have received ZERO tax increase. And somehow the District’s update of $4 million “found money” and the $5.5 million discrepancy was not worthy of making it on to the Financial Committee agenda. School board, where is your outrage?

From Neal Colligan —

The Finance Committee meeting started with a quick review of minutes and a presentation of year-to-date financials. The committee received an update on Special Education costs. Seemed to be on track but this report was not posted in the Agenda so I can’t comment on the details (for fairness, the report should make the Agenda for future meetings).

The next section of the meeting was the most eye-opening. Couched under the item Capital Planning- the Board was informed that their 2018-19 projected deficit (last year) of $1.5 MM is now a $4 MM SURPLUS.

It was difficult to follow the Business Manager’s explanation of the changes (and I watched the video twice – thanks Doug Anestad and BUILD T/E). Seems to be greater revenues of $1.6 MM-increased interest earned, State revenue increase, transportation subsidy received and increased State funding for Special Ed ($500,000). On the expense side another $1.6 MM in savings in non-instructional items under the categories of supplies and repairs and a savings in Special Education purchased services of $760,000. I know this doesn’t add up to a $5.5 MM swing but the details were not complete and not included on the Agenda items.

The discussion was centered on “what to do with this new-found surplus” but certain Board members (Murphy and Sweeney particularly) seemed surprised (as was the audience) at the BIG swing from deficit to surplus in the just completed (June 20, 2019) fiscal year. Mr. Sweeney correctly noted that this knowledge in real-time would have certainly influenced his vote on the last tax increase (3.91%).

Some of the discussion on what to do with this money and “below-the-line/above-the-line” differences, transfers to other funds (Capital), and the relation of the surplus to authorized spending was a bit painful to watch … but I’m speaking as an accountant so I know these are easier concepts for me. This decision will be tabled for another meeting but, IMHO, the Board needs to quickly become familiar with the process here as it relates to what they can do with their surplus after the year is completed. They can be forgiven as they are not “financial” people but they’ll have to get up to speed fast on the rules. Not a single Board member (although Sweeney touched on this) considered the taxpayer in this discussion (i.e.: could surplus be used to offset future tax increases).

The final part of the meeting briefly touched on the Committee’s goals going forward. Mr. Sweeney had suggested changes to the budget process as well as additional detail be required from the Administration to help the Committee understand the District finances. This was also tabled for a future meeting. Mr. Dorsey supported the discussion of changes in the Board/Finance Committee process and the importance of this initiative. Comments from the audience included: getting real-time financial numbers from the Administration; on-going busing issues and suggesting a format for review of Budget variances over a longer historical time frame.

Thank you Neal! Here’s a link to the Finance Committee video.

Make sure to watch the video to the end for the resident comments. Sadly, some District parents are still experiencing transportation issues – young children sitting on the buses for a long time, including on school grounds. Parents continue to ask the District for a tracking app (for buses) which “may” happen at the December Finance Committee meeting.

The “kick the can” mentality is allowed to continue with no sense of urgency. Where is the accountability and demand to fix the busing problems … right, the Transportation Director reports to the Business Manager. Why is it that so many issues in this school district lead directly the Business Manager (and then sadly, HE is allowed to prioritize).

The Wheels on the Bus … are Late!

August 28, 2019

79 Comments

We all understand that it’s the first week of school and that there are bound to be glitches. But some of the stories I am hearing from parents about the bus situation in T/E are unacceptable and scary!

Part of the problem with transportation issues may have to do with the changes in school start times. Back in April the school board approved the change in start times as a result of adolescent sleep needs. The changes are as follows:

High School: 7:50 AM – 2:50 PM (previously 7:20 AM – 2:20 PM)
Middle Schools: 8:27 AM – 3:10 PM (previously 7:50 AM – 2:33 PM) Elementary Schools: 9:10 AM – 3:45 PM (previously 8:45 AM – 3:20 PM)

For some working parents, the later start times created schedule issues but they had four months to make necessary adjustments. The transportation department of the District also had four months’ notice to adequately adjust the bus schedules and routes as needed. Not sure exactly what happened during the summer months but there seems a huge disconnect between the Krapf Bus Company and its drivers, the District’s administration and transportation department and the parents and their children.

I want to be clear that no parent who contacted me was expecting the system to work perfectly the first week but they sure deserved better than what some received!

Unsettling information about the District’s bus transportation includes late buses, repeated changes in schedules (one mother reported three schedule changes occurred last week), poor or non-existent communication from the transportation department and/or administration, unanswered phone calls and emails. Where is the accountability to the District’s parents?

As an example, here’s one disturbing story – bus #32 in the Glenhardie area was scheduled to pick children up at Valley Forge Elementary School at 3:45 PM. For those that don’t know, VFES is located on Walker Road, extremely close to the homes of the students. The VFES students on bus #32 did not arrive home until 6 PM, after spending hours on the bus!

One of the parents of children on bus #32 reported that the driver was lost in the neighborhood and that the older children on the bus were attempting to direct the driver – with the younger children upset and crying. It was reported that the driver actually became stressed herself and told the children that she was lost and didn’t know where she was going. Eventually the bus driver made her way back to Valley Forge Middle School with the children – yep, took the kids to the middle school! The children sat on the bus without air conditioning while they waited for a Kraft Bus Company ‘trainer’ to arrive and transport the children home. Isn’t there a dry run of bus routes before school starts – this should not be an “on the job training” position!

With safety a high priority in schools (remember we have all our schools fenced in!) one can only imagine how distraught the parents and children became as the hours dragged on. But the worse part – the District apparently invested in a new software system, TE All-Call, which was to notify the parents of bus delays. The parents received NO notification from All-Call and NO notification from the District. Parents had no idea where their children were for hours! The problems with #32 route continue with the driver picking up students at incorrect stops, late arrivals, etc. Parents described feelings of disappointment towards the lack of communication regarding when their children would be home – there has been no follow-up apology or explanation from the District.

I want to be clear, the problems with bus #32 and its driver is not an isolated transportation situation in the school district this week. I had another parent mention that none of the blinking bus caution signs were turned on in the District. This becomes important when children who walk to schools are crossing busy roads and drivers need notification that schools are open. It was also reported that the Krapf driver of bus #29 at New Eagle Elementary School had similar problems as bus #32 driver with getting the children home late due to confusion with the bus route.

At Monday’s school board meeting, a parent from Paoli commented that their bus stop location had changed and now requires the children to stand in a busy road to wait for the bus. She reported having contacted the District’s transportation department but there was no response.

Again – we all get that this is the first week of school but some of these reports were avoidable! Why do Krapf bus drivers not know their routes? Why isn’t the TE All-Call system notifying the parents of bus delays? Why are the blinking school lights not turned on? And why isn’t the school district responding and/or communicating to the parents?

Backlash Continues over T/E School District’s 3.9% Tax Increase – Some on School Board Defend Annual Increases

August 19, 2019

25 Comments

Since the publication of the Philadelphia Inquirer article regarding local school tax increases last week, there has been much discussion on social media — with at least two currently serving school board directors defending T/E School District’s tax increases on Facebook. In T/E School District residents have faced annual tax increases for the last fifteen years. And for the 2019-20 year, our District has the second highest tax increase (3.9%) in the Philly region. Not a distinction many of us want.

Unlike some places, we are fortunate to have an abundance of educated and engaged residents in our community — and many with knowledge and expertise in finances. As examples, Ray Clarke, Mike Heaberg and Neal Colligan are residents with financial backgrounds who attend most school board meetings and routinely offer financial advice and comments.

Although school board members encourage attendance at its meetings, it has been my view that many of the comments and/or suggestions by residents are either ignored or not seriously considered. I believe that you should “play to your strengths” and would encourage the school board to take advantage of the financial expertise that some of our qualified residents are offering. Everyone cannot be an expert in all things, so school board, why not take advantage of the high level financial skill set which exists in the community.

Following the publication of the recent Philadelphia Inquirer article, one of our financial gurus Neal Colligan wrote a letter to the T/E School Board. The communication addresses the District’s finances and Neal has generously agreed to share it below:

Greetings School Board,

I’m writing to you on financial matters. While I may appear to be a “broken record”, the financial decisions of the T/ESD affect everyone in our District whether they have children in the schools or not. The Inquirer recently did a story on School Tax increases. In this article, you may notice that T/E had the highest dollar increase in school taxes in Chester County for THIS year, for the past 5 YEARS and the last 10 YEARS. It adds up and is, obviously, a burden to all property owners.

Next year, you will have to decide on a new teacher’s contract. This is the largest (by far) municipal contract impacting our community. A multi-year contract could well approach a Quarter of a Billion Dollars…it’s very important. So, before you get into that issue, it may well be a time to look at recent financial decisions to see if we can learn anything about our process that could/should change in the future.

As you’re well aware, this past Budget season you learned that the District had filed erroneous State Financial Disclosure forms increasing your taxing authority beyond what it should have been. I believe you have begun to deal with the correction of that issue…I applaud those of you that moved to “do the right thing”.

Just this last year you approved a $30 MM bond issue even though you had no use for those funds for two years. You were convinced that “rates were at or near their low and that it was a good time to Borrow”. We may want to examine that decision. The Carry on that borrowing is substantial, for the two years that the money is unused it amounts to about $2.4 MM ($30 MM x .04% x 2 years). Was that a wise move? Rather than rates going up, as you were led to believe, rates have plummeted well over 100 basis points on the 10-year (the statistic that the bond seller used to compare). This also has financial impact…in a simple calculation: $30 MM x .01% x 10 years…or $3 MM dollars! That’s a possible interest savings of well over 5 MILLION DOLLARS. That kind of money, even over a 10-year period, could fund a lot of educational expenses.

Those decisions have been made and we can’t go back even though we may wish we could. The important take-away, IMHO, is your decision making process. Are you getting the information you need to make good decisions, do you trust the “data” you are being given??? I suggest; we can do better.

Are your BEST people; Administration and Board representatives; in charge of formulating your strategies??? Do you need other professional voices; hired or volunteer; to help you make these large fiscal decisions. If YES; and I think you would agree the answer is YES: now may be the time to get your “Process” in order. Your coming up on another large Borrowing for the expansion of the High School, you’re coming off an accounting issue that was obfuscated and denied for a long time (by both your key Admin people and your key Board members), and you have in front of you the renewal of the LARGEST municipal contract in our community. Those are BIG items; we’re counting on you to make good decisions. Give yourself the best chance to do the right things by changing your Process if it helps.

Members of this community are always here to help.

Neal Colligan

T/E School District Ties for Second for Highest School Tax Increase in Philly Region & Delivered 37% School Tax Increase to Residents in Last Decade! Is This Sustainable?

August 15, 2019

33 Comments

Last week I was contacted by Laura McCrystal, a writer with the Philadelphia Inquirer asking about TESD’s recently approved tax increase of 3.9%. Although she was very aware of our District’s ongoing saga over the $1.2 million accounting error, Laura was clear that the article she was working on was specific to greater Philadelphia area school districts and a comparative analysis of school taxes.

For the record, the $1.2 million accounting error caused by the District’s delayed payment of a special ed invoices remains an open issue. Although the school board acknowledged and voted to correct the error with the PA Department of Education, as of the last school board meeting it had not yet been done.

The Philadelphia Inquirer published its article, “How much are your school taxes increasing? Here’s a district-by-district look at the Philly region” which is a fascinating read — and analysis of tax increases in the region. Although the T/E School District generally like to come in at first place, on the tax increase list we tied for second highest increase! Yes, our District received the distinction of the second highest tax increase (3.9%) in the greater Philadelphia region – second only to Morrisville School District in Bucks County with a 6.7% tax increase. (If you recall, the T/E School Board had originally passed the proposed final budget (5-4 vote) in late April with a 6% tax increase which was later reduced to 3.9% in June.). Below shows the highest tax increase school districts:

In discussion with the Philadelphia writer, I was asked about the impact of rising taxes on the community. As was stated in the article, I worry “ about a lack of scrutiny on the school budget and its rising taxes because so many residents move to the district so that they can send their children to its high-performing schools. “There are some who are inclined not to be concerned about the taxes that are being paid because they feel like the value they get offsets that,” she said. “But I think part of the problem is that as a result of people moving here for the school district … the budget process is not scrutinized as much as it would be.”

I expressed concern that our school district tax increase is not an isolated one year increase – but that we should look at our tax increases year after year. As was stated in the article, I have been tracking the tax increases in T/E School District for the last 15 years and you need to go all the way back to the 2004-05 year for the last zero tax increase! Looking at the chart above, you see that our District has had an 18% tax increase over the last 5 years and a whopping 37% during the last 10 years.

I excerpted neighboring school districts Unionville-Chadds Ford, Upper Merion, Phoenixville, Great Valley and Downingtown from the Philadelphia Inquirer chart.

Looking at nearby Great Valley School District, they are keeping taxes significantly lower than T/E with a 1.2% tax increase for 2019-20 school year, 8% increase for 5 years and 18% increase for 10 years. Great Valley is another high achieving school district with similar performing students, special ed needs, rising pension costs, etc. so what accounts for the dramatic tax difference between GVSD and T/E?

But look at Downingtown Area School District! According to Niche, Downingtown Area School District has 12,656 students in grades K-12 with a student-teacher ratio of 15 – 1 and according to state test scores, 69% of students are at least proficient in math and 85% in reading.

Some will argue that Downingtown Area School District is not in the highest performing echelon of area school districts (like T/E, Unionville-Chadds Ford, Lower Merion or Great Valley) but they operate ten elementary schools, three middle schools and three high schools and somehow manage to have a ZERO tax increase for 2019-20, ZERO tax increase for the last 5 years and only 7% tax increase for the last 10 years.

Downingtown is operating a large school district that has rising pension costs and increased special ed expenses like all the other school districts, yet successfully delivers zero tax increases to their residents year after year.

I’m not suggesting that we all move to Downingtown School District but there should be some kind of balance — why is it that as residents of the T/E School District we are faced with significant tax increases year after year?

Families move to the T/E community for the school district and are generally satisfied as long as the high test scores are maintained. As a result, there is a certain complacency when it comes to the District’s budget and our ever-increasing taxes. Guess the question becomes, how long are these yearly tax increases sustainable by the District’s taxpayers?

T/E School District News: 3.91% Tax Increase, District to Correct $1.2M Accounting Error & School Board Member Resigns

June 11, 2019

69 Comments

The five-hour marathon school board meeting last night lasted until 12:30 AM, albeit the audience was kept waiting with a 30-minute late start. For those community members who stayed the course until the end of the school board meeting, thank you!

Although I was unable to attend the meeting, I received multiple updates throughout the evening followed up with several phone calls today. The significant takeaways from the evening included the (1) 2019-20 tax increase decision of 3.91%, (2) the Board vote for the District to take responsibility for the accounting error and to correct the Annual Financial Reports (AFR) with PA Department of Education (although sadly all Board members were not in favor of “doing what’s right”) and (3) the announcement of the resignation of a school board member.

Luckily, we have Ray Clarke providing comments on the school board meeting until he left at 11 PM (following the 3.91% tax increase vote). At that point, Mike Heaberg picks up the commentary until the meeting finally ended at 12:35 AM. See their remarks below — thank you both!

From Ray Clarke:

– Dramatically larger attendance than a typical meeting, which multiplied the persistent disregard for the community’s time when the meeting started half an hour late

– A long plea from the rugby club for Varsity status, but notably none stayed for the Budget discussion which might have suggested funding limitations

– The Board based its discussion around just the 3.91% tax increase, not all the other options (2.8% or 4.33%)

– The Board agreed to amend the 3.91% budget motion with an investment in the new elementary reading program as a $300,000 one-time “below-the-line” expense, contingent on a number of conditions. This did not satisfy parents who are advocating for parent involvement in selection of any new program

– The amended motion passed 7-2, with Kate Murphy and Ed Sweeney allied for a lower number. Todd Kantorczyk and Roberta Hotinski reluctantly went along with a lower number than they would prefer, the former (correctly) noting that budget and actual deficits cannot continue, while the latter continues (inexplicably) to want to move the following year’s – potential – exception forward into the coming Budget year.

– All Board members seemed to agree that the Budget process is broken. Board President Scott Dorsey wants to separate the budget from the routine Finance process. He spoke forcefully about his outrage at this and the $700,000 expense surprise revealed at the last meeting. He warned of “someone paying the price” for any similar issues in the future.

– The District’s Solicitor (reportedly with financial experience, not Ken Roos but from the same law firm, Wisler Pearlstine) advised the Board that Annual Financial Reports to the state CAN be corrected, provided that there are new audited statements and if certified by a new auditing firm or individual. The Business Manager reported logistical, cost, PDE and outcome risk issues with this, although to the audience it seemed that those were grossly over-stated.

– A wide cross-section of community members spoke compellingly in favor of the District basing its decisions on the correct financials, about the pattern of behavior that has got us to this point, and about the need for process and personnel changes

– Unfortunately many had to leave at 11pm after the budget vote, but the AFR revision discussion continued.

Mike Heaberg picks up the commentary on the school board meeting at this point, including the Board’s acknowledgement of the administration’s accounting error and subsequent vote to correct the District audits, the Annual Financial Reports (AFR) and resubmit. Thanks so much Mike!

From Mike Heaberg:

– After the Board acted on the consent agenda, other action items, and “final” public comments, Ed Sweeney made a motion to begin the process of correcting the District audits and Annual Financial Reports for 2016-17 and 2017-18. Kate Murphy seconded it.

A long Board discussion ensued including input from the District’s Solicitor, Business Manager, Superintendent and the public. At one point, Todd Kantorczyk made a motion to table action until a future meeting – the next scheduled is August 26. On a roll call vote, his motion failed 5-4. After more discussion, the vote was held via roll call. It won 6-3. Voting in favor of correcting the audits and AFRs were Ed Sweeney, Kate Murphy, Scott Dorsey, Michele Burger, Heather Ward, and Tina Whitlow. Todd Kantorczyk, Roberta Hotinski, and Kyle Boyer voted against correcting the audits and AFRs.

– At the very end, about 12:15 AM, Heather Ward announced she is moving out of the District and resigning from the Board effective 6/16/19. The Board has not sorted out the replacement process. Heather made gracious comments and her colleagues offered thanks and praise for her service to the District.

The 2019-20 budget process was one for the books with final changes and decisions coming in at the eleventh hour (or in this case 12:30 AM!). I am appreciative that in the end, school board member Ed Sweeney had the resolve and courage to push forward for correction of the District audits and Annual Financial Reports. I thank him and the other five Board members (Kate Murphy, Scott Dorsey, Michele Burger, Heather Ward and Tina Whitlow) for “doing what’s right” and voting to correct the District audits and AFRs but simply do not understand why the other three Board members opposed the action.

Over many months, much time and energy was expended by the public in urging the Board to do “what’s right” — I’m left wondering why it took months of meetings, emails and phone calls (many by resident financial experts) plus an official letter of complaint to the PA Dept. of Education to finally achieve this goal.

In my opinion, there is an imbalance in power and control in the school district administration. All roads lead back to (or through) Art McDonnell, the Business Manager and the 2019-20 budget process debacle was a direct result of his actions. The Board (and the District’s taxpayers!) are ill-served by this business manager and we deserve better! When is enough, enough?

Clock is Ticking Down for T/E School District Final Budget — Vote on Tax Increase Monday Night!

June 9, 2019

12 Comments

The clock is ticking down for the school board and 2019-20 budget decisions. The school board will vote on the final budget on Monday, June 10, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. (Click here for the agenda).

In mid-December, the District first presented the 2019/20 budget with its proposed 6.1% tax increase — much has happened in the intervening six months.

Ongoing questions from the public about the $1.2 million accounting error have remained unanswered or denied, even in the face of legal action.

The individual Board members continue to be at odds about the proposed tax increase although the “whisper down the lane” message for months was that the tax increase would not be 6.1%.

The public is now told that the District tax increase “under consideration” is one in a pick list of 2.8%, 3.91% or 4.33%. The exact tax increase number becomes dependent on which school board member that you ask, with some keen on the lowest increase – some the highest and the others in the middle! Although the specific proposed tax increase should have been firmed up months ago, the public will have to wait for the final vote from the Board tomorrow night.

In case you are interested, below is the updated T/E School District tax increase chart for the last 15 years. Although I have no say (or sway!) my vote is for a 2.8% tax increase for the 2019-20 budget year versus one of the suggested higher increases. But to be clear, I’d like to roll back to the 2004-05 school year, the last time we saw no tax increase!

2019-20: 4.33%, 3.91% or 2.8%?
2018-19: 2.42%
2017-18: 3.2%
2016-17: 3.6%
2015-16: 3.81%
2014-15: 3.4%
2013-14: 1.7%
2012-13: 3.3%
2011-12: 3.77%
2010-11: 2.9%
2009-10: 2.95%
2008-09: 4.37%
2007-08: 3.37%
2006-07: 3.90%
2005-06: 1.40%
2004-05: Zero Tax Increase

In advance of the meeting tomorrow night, I want to thank school board members Roberta Hotinski and Ed Sweeney for weighing in with comments on Community Matters regarding the budget. (Their fellow Board members are always welcomed to do likewise). And thank you to those in the community who have presented their thoughtful comments on the proposed budget, both here and privately in emails and phone calls — much appreciated!

And a special thank you to my friend Ray Clarke – faced with a 338-page agenda for the Board meeting tomorrow, I am grateful for his review and commentary on the agenda and final budget (see below).

TESD has published the Agenda for Monday’s meeting. The Final Budget is to be approved, but three possible tax increases are still on the table, as are a number of “Budget Impact Strategies”, both quantified previously and also – alarmingly – “Other items to Consider”, that includes “2019/20 Budget Assumptions”. What a way to run a railroad – or a school district.

The main issue has been beaten to death here, of course, and remains: How can any tax increase greater than 3.91% be approved? What are the implications of accepting that number?

A couple of other things caught my eye:

– The average of both Administration and Supervisor salary increases are more than the 2.3% Act 1 Index, and more than the contractual 1.7%. Where is that extra money to come from – the Special Education Exception?

– On the other hand, the compensation for aides and paras (the few not outsourced) increases just 1.7%. These folks earn less than a quarter of the average Admin.

– There is the proposed appointment of a School Safety Coordinator at a salary that with benefits would imply the originally budgeted $180K expense, yet the budget materials include a $50,000 saving. Has that been explained or is it just another Consent Agenda item?

– Once more this year, the materials include a listing of service provider rates, with no context – such as: comparison with last year, total spend, total $ and % increase, issues if any

– 21 retirements celebrated and an unknown number of resignations during the year; what’s the budget impact of lower compensated replacements (“breakage”)? No idea!

– More Special Education Agreements that boggle the mind: $452,000 for seven students for a year; $209,000 for one student for two years. The accounting cover up has stolen two years from any possible effort to understand and manage this expense category.

So, as the Board considers next year’s Budget, do they have any idea at all of what’s going on? Any frame of reference with current best estimate numbers: this year vs last year (and last three years), revenues and expenses by actionable category, backed by their underlying assumptions? Any confidence? Any trust?

Seems like it’s the proverbial rainy day for which that $30 million Fund Balance is needed. As someone who has paid into it for 20 years. I’m happy to see it dwindle. That’s only good for so long, though.

T/E School District Tax Increase — Will it be 2.8%, 3.91% or 4.33%? “To Be Continued”

May 31, 2019

35 Comments

On the eve of June 1st and days away from the end of school year, the school board still does not have an agreed up tax increase number for the budget! How is that possible? What we do know is that the tax increase will be less than the 6% that we have heard since the middle of December and the increase was approved in the draft final budget. However, we are left with three numbers — 2.8%, 3.91% and 4.33%. Exactly how did the Board come up with these various numbers? What are the numbers based on? And how does the incorrect accounting of the Special Ed expenses factor into the tax increase?

Although I was unable to attend the school board meeting this week because it was the same night as the digital billboard appeal, Doug Anestad attended and offer his remarks below. Plus the video of the May 29 school board meeting is now available on the District’s website, click here to view.

After reading Doug’s comments, my first takeaway is that maybe the TESD 2019-20 budget process should be renamed, “To Be Continued …”!

The school board met Wednesday night. The agenda was very light.

What was interesting was that no new budget discussions happened. It is very late in the game not to come to a final tax rate increase. Therefore, the 2.8%, 3.91%, and 4.33% tax increases are all still on the table.

The board proposed changes to Regulation 2110: Job Responsibilities for Superintendent of School. The proposed change says that if one or more invoices from the same vendor above $200k is accounted for in the wrong fiscal year, the Superintendent must be notified and the Superintendent must inform the school board.

Of course, this proposed change in regulation came about because the administration didn’t tell the the school board about $1.2M in special education expenditures from 2016-2017 that were wrongly recorded against 2017-2018. I spoke about the regulation and said that if you have to tell the administration when $1.2M is misstated they should notify the board, it is not a policy issue, it is a personnel issue and they should treat it as such. Kyle Boyer also had concerns about it being a personnel and not a policy issue. The vote was 8-1 on the regulation change.

When the administration started discussing the launch of updating the Strategic Plan at a cost of $50k, some of the board members raised concerns. This is highly unusual as this item is not even normally voted on as a separate item. Multiple board members said that they thought that the district was not in a position to deal with a Strategic Plan. The final vote was 5-4 with Michele Burger, Kate Murphy, Ed Sweeney, and Heather Ward all voting against the motion. I believe that this close vote demonstrates that multiple board members are not happy with the current situation and the administration.

Major kudos to Ed Sweeney for bringing up the issue of revising the finance numbers for the prior years to be the actual numbers. He asked, and the board agreed, to look into the financial and legal ramifications of fixing the numbers to be the real numbers. They seem to be most concerned about double dipping next year since they already got a higher taxing authorization from the state based on the wrong numbers.

I am not sure why so many on the school board continue to be so hesitant to figure out the truth. Why have they still not asked the auditors when Art McDonnell informed the auditors about the $1.2M account error? Why haven’t they already figured out what the process is to correct the numbers? Why haven’t they asked the state how revising the financial statements to be the real numbers will impact their taxing authority?

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters