Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 49 of 67

Tredyffrin Township

It’s official, Community Matters in Tredyffrin Township is now independently-hosted at www.pattyebenson.org If you want to follow Community Matters and be notified when there is a new posting, go to the upper right-side of the home page and enter your email address. You will receive a verification email which you will need to confirm. For those of you that were previously signed-up as a subscriber on Community Matters, you will need to sign up again. Sorry for the inconvenience but there was no easy way to transfer the subscriber list. You can also sign up to follow on Twitter and I’m working on a Community Matters in Tredyffrin Township Facebook page.

Thank you for your support . . . please email me if you have a topic suggestion for Community Matters. We need to continue our community discussion and debate of important issues. Email: TredyffrinCommunityMatters@gmail.com

Township Park Ordinance in Violation of State Law . . . so says resident and member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association

March 20, 2010

7 Comments

A couple of days ago I received an anonymous comment from gunrights-tredyffrintownship. This was an interesting comment for several reasons. Those of you who have been following Community Matters will recall my fascination and naivete over the recent firearms in national parks legislation. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in the community. Of all the issues that have been discussed on Community Matters, I think this topic generated more dinner table conversation and heated debate than anything else. Recently I met someone for the first time and they brought up the gun control discussion on Community Matters . . . go figure.

This brings me to today’s posting. Below you will find a series of email exchanges between gunrights-tredyffrintownship (an anonymous Community Matters commentor using that name) and the Board of Supervisors and discussion with Tom Hogan. At issue is the signage in our township parks in regards to guns. When it comes to the ability to carry guns in our township parks, apparently Tredyffrin Township’s park ordinance and signs are in violation of Pennsylvania state law. I never read the small print on our township park signs but I guess I will the next time I visit. This person has all of his/her emails with the township posted on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum, located at: http://forum.pafoa.org. It appeared that the email trail ended with a conversation with Tom Hogan late last year. There was an addendeum to the comment that stated the resident was waiting for a further update in regards to the park signage, but so far in 2010 has not received anything further.

There is a cost to changing the signs (the commentator offers suggestions) . . . what do you think? Should our park signs be corrected? From the timeline of this email discussion, it would suggest that this person has been waiting for an answer. Do you think that it should be addressed at a Board of Supervisors meeting?

Preemption Violation – Tredyffrin Township

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I am a resident of Tredyffrin Township and a member of an organization called The Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. I would like to bring to the attention of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors a township ordinance that appears to be in violation of state law. I became aware of this issue when I recently visited Louis D’Ambrosia Park and read the park rules sign posted there.

Further research led me to Chapter 138 of the Township Code, Parks and Playgrounds, Section 3 Regulations, Subsection J, which states the following:

“No person, other than township active duty police officers employed in the execution of their duties, shall carry or possess or discharge or use firearms or weapons of any type in a township park. [Amended 6-1-1998 by Ord. No. HR-270]”

This law is in violation of Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act), specifically §6120 (a) that states:

“General rule: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.”

The preemption statute I quoted was passed in 1995. I am unsure when regulation J was passed. It may have been in place before 1995, explaining why it could have been overlooked. Unfortunately there was no grandfathering of existing limitations when The Uniform Firearms Act was passed. Regulation “J” as it stands today is invalid with regards to the carrying or possessing a firearm in a township park.

I know some people might want to know why someone would want to carry a firearm in a township park. The answer may be as simple as they carry a firearm daily. I know I do. But that question is not really the issue.

The preemption statute I quoted is very important for Pennsylvanians that legally carry a firearm, in that it removes the problem of a traveling citizen running afoul of a myriad of local laws prohibiting where you can and cannot carry a firearm. In other words, licensed or otherwise legal carriers of firearms in Pennsylvania can carry everywhere not prohibited by state or federal law.

Of particular interest to Tredyffrin Township is that since this rule is unenforceable, there could be negative consequences should an unknowing person, or even one choosing to ignore the rule knowing it is null and void, happen to be cited or otherwise confronted. If a police officer were to enforce such rule or ordinance, wrongful arrest and other charges could be laid on the officer, the police department and Tredyffrin Township– not an inexpensive proposition.

I respectfully ask that the Board of Supervisors look into this matter. Please let me know how you and your colleagues will proceed with bringing Tredyffrin Township in compliance with state law. A copy of §6120 is also attached.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Most respectfully yours,

I sent the first letter on September 22nd. After receiving no response, I sent the following e-mail to the Chairman on October 7th.

Quote:

From: xxxxxxx xxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@verizon.net]
To: Warren E. Kampf
Subject: Initial correspondence

Warren,
Several weeks ago I sent a letter to you and your fellow supervisors
regarding a township park ordinance. As of today I have not received a
response. Did you receive my initial correspondence?

Thank You,

Today I received this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response tonight was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Since they meet twice a month, every other Monday, it shouldn’t be difficult to attend a meeting if I fail to hear from the solicitor soon. I also was contacted by a local newspaper reporter and have been keeping him in the loop regarding progress. I will continue to update as things move forward.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

________________________________

Update, 6 days ago the Chairman sent me this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response to that was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Yesterday I received this:

Quote:
Either he will or someone from township will.

Nice one sentence responses I get from the Chairman. You would think the least he would do is properly address the person he is communicating with and maybe sign the end of the e-mail.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

——————————————————————————–

That lets you know how important you are, in his eyes. Perhaps it’s time to start campaigning to elect a new chairman?
__________________

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

___________________

Good news to report here. I received a letter on Friday from the township solicitor, Thomas Hogan, requesting I call him to discuss the letter I sent the supervisors. Around 2:30 pm I called his office. After exchanging greetings with him, the first words out of his mouth were, “I’m in receipt of your letter, and am in complete agreement with your legal position.” I almost fell off my chair.

After reading threads about defiant townships, boroughs, etc, this is not the answer I expected. He also informed me he made a call to the Chief of Police, Andy Chambers. He said he would probably speak with him over the weekend and inform him that the department could not enforce the ordinance because it violates the state preemption law. I almost fell off the chair again.

In the next few minutes of our discussion, Mr. Hogan asked me if I had any immediate concerns, upcoming events in a township park, or if I was worried about this particular ordinance. I reiterated what I said in my letter to the supervisors about gun carriers dodging a myriad of local regulations and if someone were falsely arrested due to this ordinance it would not be right.

I then told him I was happy to see he was in agreement with my concerns and stated the next steps needed to be a repeal/revision of the ordinance, and modifying the signs in the township parks. He said he would speak with the supervisors about how they would like to handle the ordinance part of my concerns. Then came the sign issue. He went on to say the township has a lot of parks and signs and the cost associated with changing all the signs would be an expensive proposition, but next time they change the signs they could modify them.

I told him they could either cover up the part about firearms, or heat up the stick on letters and peel them off. He said he would contact the public works department for how to handle this. Since he was very cooperative and understanding of my concerns, I didn’t want to press him too hard on the sign issue yet. He seems dedicated to addressing these two issues and bringing them to a resolution that is to my satisfaction, so I will continue to work with him. He said I should hear back from him in about one week. He said I might need to appear before the supervisors with him and ask for the ordinance to be repealed/modified. This depends on how the supervisors wish to handle it.

This is how all of the preemption violations we contest should be handled. Mr. Hogan’s professionalism was very refreshing. While many of us are quick to fire off letters and e-mails to persons who infringe on our rights, we should also thank those who work with us in the preservation of those rights and follow the rule of law.

Support Radnor Fire Company . . . Come Enjoy Breakfast with the Easter Bunny

March 19, 2010

Comments

Breakfast with the Easter Bunny Radnor Fire Company on Sunday!

The Easter Bunny will be stopping at the Radnor Fire Company for his annual breakfast — you don’t want to miss this opportunity and support our local firefighters!

Date: Sunday, March 21

Time: 8:00 AM – 12:30 PM

Price: Adults – $7; Children under 10 – $4; Under 2 – FREE

Pancakes, Eggs, Bacon, Toast, Orange Juice and Coffee are just some of the items on the menu.

Breakfast will be served buffet style and will be all you can eat!

This event is sponsored by the Radnor Fire Company Auxilliary.

Community Matters is now independently hosted at www.pattyebenson.org

March 19, 2010

2 Comments

Community Matters is now independently hosted; it is no longer a traditional WordPress blog hosted by WordPress. Please visit Community Matters at this site, www.pattyebenson.org for all new posts and to leave your comments. We know that when change occurs, there are bugs to be worked out and here’s hoping that the learning-curve would be too great for any of us. You will notice under each of the posts a share/save button which will allow Community Matters to have a wider audience.

One of the elements of this new site that we are still working on is the ‘Sign-Up to Follow Community Matters’ button. Look for that button in the upper right hand corner over the next day or so. Unfortunately all of you that had signed up before will need to sign-up again if you want to be notified of posts and comments update. For security reasons, the system will not allow me to simply move your email addresses to the new site. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Our Fire Companies Should Not be Political Pawns

March 17, 2010

36 Comments

Working together, the volunteer firefighters of Berwyn, Paoli and Radnor fire companies serve Tredyffrin Township. Many of our residents and their families are involved in the volunteer firefighting effort and proudly serve our community. Firefighting is demanding. There are hours of training involved, requirements to be met, standards to uphold, and volunteer firefighters are not compensated in the traditional way. There is no big paycheck or large monetary bonus to work harder.

John DiBuonaventuro has served as a volunteer firefigher for the Paoli Fire Company for many years and is passionate in his support. In his position as a member of the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor DiBuonaventuro also serves as the fire company liaison. As an audience member in this week’s Board of Supervisors meeting, I witnessed an uncomfortable exchange between Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Warren Kampf in regards to the fire companies and their funding. Understanding DiBuonaventuro’s long-standing support of the fire companies vs. Kampf’s vote against full-funding of the fire companies in the township’s 2010 budget . . . one might question Supervisor Kampf’s sudden interest in our local fire companies and their funding.

Our volunteer firefighters deserve our community’s support . . . but I think we would all agree they should not be used as pawns in a political campaign. Today’s Main Line Suburban newspaper includes the following As I See It opinion article, The continual politicization of our fire services, which speaks directly to this topic.

As I See It: The continual politicization of our fire services

By John V. Petersen

As if the big cardboard-check moment during the Dec. 12, 2009 Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting wasn’t enough, we had another play at Monday night’s BOS meeting involving the fire service as a political football. As we all know, Warren Kampf, current Tredyffrin BOS member and previous chairman, is seeking to challenge Rep. Paul Drucker for the State Representative seat for the 157th Legislative District. At Monday night’s BOS meeting, Mr. Kampf stated that he met with members of the Berwyn Fire Company and the topic of a stable long-term firefighter-funding source was discussed. What Mr. Kampf failed to tell the public was his visit to Berwyn was in connection with his 157th candidacy, not in his capacity as a Tredyffrin supervisor. For the record Supervisor and Paoli firefighter John “J.D.” DiBuonaventuro serves as the fire liaison.

In that capacity, Supervisor DiBuonaventuro has had such meetings concerning the fire task force and funding with Berwyn and Paoli FDs and updates on that progress have been shared with the public, most recently at the March 1, 2010 meeting. On that same day Mr. Kampf sought the Montgomery County endorsement for the 157th and therefore did not attend the March 1 meeting and clearly was not aware that the matter was already discussed during the previous meeting.

What I find disingenuous is Mr. Kampf on one hand stating the importance of finding a stable long-term funding source for the fire companies and on the other hand, most previously in his role as BOS Chairman, supporting cuts to the fire service and at the same time retaining funding for the annual July 4 fireworks display. These two viewpoints are completely irreconcilable. It should also be noted that earlier in his tenure on the BOS, Mr. Kampf served on fire task force. Accordingly Mr. Kampf has already had an opportunity to address the issues that are currently being addressed by Supervisor DiBuonaventuro. It is clear that the only motivation here is Mr. Kampf’s pursuit of higher political office. And to that end he is seeking to use the fire service as a pawn in his political chess game. Between the big cardboard-check event and last night’s meeting, it is clear Mr. Kampf is using a public forum dedicated to township business for his own political purposes. In a word it is inappropriate.

When the firefighters and EMTs perform their heroic work, they don’t ask about party registration. To be used as a political football of sorts is to denigrate that heroic work. Ultimately Mr. Kampf is free to run his campaign as he sees fit. As citizens we have forums like this to hold candidates and office-holders accountable. All I would ask is that Mr. Kampf campaign on his own time, not during the time when the business of Tredyffrin Township is to be addressed. Further, I would ask that all candidates leave the fire service out of their political calculus. There are plenty of other matters ripe for politics. The fire service is not one of them.

John V. Petersen lives in Paoli.

State Rep. Paul Drucker's Bill to encourage 'green' building for schools passes House

March 17, 2010

Comments

News from Harrisburg . . . Our State Rep. Paul Drucker’s House Bill 689 to provide incentives for school districts to construct cleaner and more efficient schools has passed the House with a vote of 106-85. My understanding is the roots of this legislative bill began in 2008 under former State Rep. Carole Rubley’s direction. With some 2009/10 updating, Rep. Drucker was able to successfully move the bill through the House’s voting process. The following is excerpted from Pennsylvania State House press release:

Current law requires school boards to first receive voter approval before commencing any major construction plans over a certain dollar amount, including new buildings or significant renovations. That law, he said, inadvertently impedes the construction of environmentally friendly schools due to the high up-front cost, which may push the cost of green construction over the limit. House Bill 689 would exclude any costs incurred by a school district in the construction of a school building that meets the Green Building Standard from the calculation of construction costs when determining if voter approval is needed. At a minimum, Green Building Standard projects must include performance-based credits that will improve a building’s energy performance and promote the use of environmentally friendly building materials and technologies. Documentation to support the energy efficiency of the project is required. Green Building Standard projects must also employ third-party, post-construction review and have a performance record of certified green buildings in the United States.

The bill includes a requirement that Green Building Standard costs be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education at the same time that construction cost estimates are submitted for approval. Drucker said that inclusion of Green Building Standard costs with construction costs would allow districts to demonstrate any long-term savings produced by investment in green building technologies.

“Over time, green buildings save money by reducing energy costs and provide a healthier internal air quality for our children,” Drucker said. “My bill would allow school districts to realize these long-term benefits without being burdened by the up-front costs associated with green building.”

Rep. Drucker’s bill will now go to the Senate for consideration and here’s hoping for a successful outcome!

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

March 16, 2010

19 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update . . . Tonight's Supervisors Meeting

March 15, 2010

4 Comments

My primary reason for attending the Board of Supervisors meeting tonight was for the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee members. Three members were chosen from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee. Supervisors Kichline, Donohue and Richter; Planning Commissioners Bob Whalen, Trip Lukens and Vicki Snyder; and STAP members Sean Moir, Jim Donegan and Molly Duffy are the 9 members of the Sidewalks Subcommittee. Township Manager Mimi Gleason will serve as the facilitator of the committee.

After the announcement of the Sidewalks Subcommittee, I expected an outline of the committee with a stated process; but none was offered. What was the meeting schedule – how often would the committee meet? Would the meetings be open to the public? What was the timeline for the committee? Will the community be given regular updates at future supervisors meetings? In other words, I was looking for specifics on the subcommittee and the process.

In a review of the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes, I found the following:

” . . . He [Lamina] said the plan is to have the new subcommittee begin work in March with the goal to conclude the process by the end of this year. . . “

So during the next 9 months, I guess the Sidewalks Subcommittee will begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks. I believe that the end-goal is for the Board to adopt formal policies and procedures to provide guidelines for the development and construction of sidewalks in the township. Although not mentioned tonight, I am assuming that the subcommittee will set a goal to include the residents through area focus groups. Transparency and openness of the Sidewalks Committee is going to be important if the community is to trust this process.

I have publically stated, and remained concerned, that during this re-examining process by the Sidewalks Subcommittee there are liability issues to the township from developers/contractors doing work in Tredyffrin. As long as the formal policy on sidewalks remains a ‘open issue’, this liability will exist. Here’s hoping that the Sidewalks Committee is able to get underway quickly, remain focused and meet their goals and objectives by the end of the year.

Another item of personal interest to me tonight was the Mt. Pleasant town hall meeting. Scheduled twice before and cancelled each time due to snow, I am pleased that the meeting is re-scheduled for next Monday, March 22 at the First Baptist Church on Upper Gulph in Mt. Pleasant. Today I had received an invitation to attend the meeting from Officer Larry Meoli and was glad to hear the town hall meeting mentioned tonight. Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Richter will be the liaisons from the Board of Supervisors at this Mt. Pleasant community meeting. Also in attendance will be representatives from the township staff, police and zoning.

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

March 15, 2010

31 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, given that …

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 15 — 2010-11 School Budget Workshop

March 14, 2010

9 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters