The legislature, however, created an out for districts. Districts who wanted to increase their tax without going to a referendum could apply for exemptions.
The count is in and the AP reports (read the article here) that:
The Education Department granted exceptions to the referendum requirement to 210 of the state's 501 school districts, every one that asked for it, spokeswoman Sheila Ballen said.Each exception allows the district a greater tax hike without going to referendum. Exceptions include: School Construction Grandfathered Debt, School Construction Academic, School Construction Nonacademic, Special Education Expenditures, School Improvement Plan, Maintenance of Local Tax Revenue or AIE/ADM, Maintenance of Selected Revenue Sources, HealthCare-Related Benefits, and Retirement Contributions.
Nazareth took four exceptions (School Construction Grandfathered Debt, Special Education Expenditures, HealthCare-Related Benefits, and Retirement Contributions) that increased the index from 4.2% to 7.6%. The article from the AP includes a link to a PDF of all districts and the exceptions they were granted (view it here). The Morning Call summarizes local districts and the exceptions they've received here. The article also states:
Scott Shewell, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said the exceptions were meant to give school boards greater flexibility to pay for costs that are beyond their control.The concept that these costs are beyond the control of the local district is ridiculous. Who created the grandfathered debt? Who negotiated the contracts resulting in the health-care plan? Who determined how the Special Education Services would be implemented and at what cost? The admin and the board are the responsible parties and bad past decisions are being annulled through these exceptions.
There is some good news for taxpayers. The Morning Call reported (read it here) that
Locally only a handful of districts -- Bethlehem Area, East Penn, Lehighton Area, Palmerton Area and Upper Perkiomen -- have agreed to keep taxes below the inflationary rates, which range from 3.4 percent to 5.5 percent for the 2007-08 school year. Statewide, 233 (out of 501) have made that promise.Of course the good news only occurs if you live in one of those five districts and it still means your taxes are going up between 3.4 and 5.5%, so "good" is rather relative.
So what does this mean for Nazareth? I'd suggest a look at Pen Argyl. The Express-Times reported (read it here) on Friday, April 6, 2007 that Pen Argyl's index of 4.4% received exceptions that allowed an increase of 6.7% and that is the amount the Board will use for next year's budget. No vote, no say.
Nazareth's 4.2% can be increased to 7.6%. There is a special budget meeting on Wednesday, April 25. My expectation is that people will bring to the Board areas they want to have included, little will be discussed about what can be cut, and increases demanded by the people will raise our tax hike past the 4.2% closer to the 7.6% maximum. The Board will say it offered a budget at 4.2%, but the people made clear that they demand these services for their children, so while we don't want to do it, we are respecting "what the people want."
The exceptions are a significant flaw in this new legislation. Maybe some form of outside audit should be required in advance of having exceptions granted that would evaluate all spending to trim as much as possible and better ensure waste is not getting through the process. Many people, readers, and myself, have questioned growing administration, related costs, and other spending that is not directly related to student achievement in the classroom. Having a committee of professionals and citizens, not employed by the district or impacted by it might be a way to ensure spending is as efficient and necessary as possible before granting exceptions.
What do you think?
13 comments:
As always Ross, you put a bunch of somewhat connected stories that I may have read into a coherent article. Kudos.
As for the NASD situation. The index is 4.2% and with the proposed cuts made earlier, we were reported to be about $24K short. Then it it was reported that there were some "shortfalls" in their projections (e.g., only 7/8 teachers retired; the person at CDC didn't retire; etc).
Another big cut that the board may not make is the senior citizen tax rebate. Remember that NASD had stated that it costs the district $100K to fund/match the sr. citizens tax rebate given by the state so cutting it would "save" us $100K. However, with the legislature changes due to Act1, that cost was recalculated to be $180K. Cutting that would "save" us $180K, but I would imagine would be very unpopular (or perhaps divisive). So I would imagine that cut doesn't get made and therefore in fact costs us an additional $80K above what was originally budgeted. So that goes up.
The total amount of exceptions were approximately $2M. I don't see us getting anywhere near that but we will be over. My guess is that the total amount of exceptions used will be around $300K or so. Still not chump change, but nowhere near the $2M.
The REAL problem(?) is this:
The new MS is behind schedule (which may or may not pose a problem for starting on time in Aug09, but I digress). No, the problem with the school being behind is that we won't get the bids back for the MS before we set this budget. IF, they come back higher (and local schools have been "surprised" that their construction bids have come back 10% over budget), then we'll have some decisions to make. A school that is over budget now, may not affect next year's budget, but it certainly will impact future budgets and lead to referendums.
I say we are behind the eight ball.
Thanks Brad!
We probably ought to take a look at the list of cuts (found in this post)
At the time they were:
* Two IT positions to save $119,763.
* Eight staff by not replacing retiring teachers to save $295,000.
* Senior Citizen Tax Rebate program to save $100,000.
* What tax collectors earn to save $52,648.
* Three portable computer labs (one for each elementary) to save $100,000.
* A school resource officer to save $41,345.
* Staff professional development to save $20,000.
* The athletic budget by 5% to save $40,250 (and to consider pay to play to cut further).
* Field trips and activity buses to save $56,000.
* Extra-curricular and coaching salaries (EPED positions) to save $15,000.
And then the increases that weren't reflected in those figures.
The all-day K pilot will add a half day K position and the redistricting will result in added busing expenses.
We also have new Admin positions/salaries that will require a full year salary next year and no guarantee has been made the old positions won't be filled.
I'm sure there will be some others as well.
The other concern I have is that the district will play the percentage game. By this I mean that each year an index will be created. By increasing our expenditures as much as allowable, the base amount is increasing meaning the percentage will result in a larger number of dollars.
Obviously 4.2% of 56 million is not as big as 4.2% of 60 million. The bigger they can make the number, the more money they will get in the future. It is like building a cushion while they can (as long as exceptions are available).
Then again, let's hope I'm wrong on all of this and they keep it at 4.2%!
Just reading the post and disgusted. Who cares if I can't put food on the table or buy medicine for my kids...just make sure you pay the outrageous school taxes to have all the luxuries not needed in the school. The wealthy can afford it and the poor can get some help but what about the guy in the middle who struggles everyday to make ends meet and is maybe just a little happy now and then if he can blow a couple bucks to rent a video for his kids. No one thinks about the middle guy. I can't spend what I don't have and because of the greed of this district, which affects the lives of the taxpayer who really in the end has no final say, our daily lives get more stressfull and less fullfilling. These kids are in school maybe6-6 1/2 hrs per day and what is important is that they learn the three basic that we use in everyday life, What matters most is that our kids can come home to an unstressfull environment at home but that is hard in todays world because money, healthcare and the high expenses of living and unneccessary spending of our leaders and school districts put such a burden on parents. We live in such a materialistic world today...what are we really teaching our kids. Our kids need love, understanding and security and everyday this is threatened by the greed of our society. Human basic need vs wants....what is most important? People need jobs to survive...I would rather cut spending in the luxuries this district thinks we need than to cut a position that a human being relies on to feed his family. COME ON PEOPLE....LETS GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT. Athletic turf vs feed my familly, New pool vs feed my family, Sports complex vs feed my family. If we want to be a great district and stand out we need to need to teach our kids responsibility, accountability and morals. IT IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE IN LIFE THAT MAKES YOU GREAT..IT IS WHAT YOU DO IN LIFE.
As I guessed in an earlier comment when you and Brad were discussing how the District was going to balance the budget, they do have a plan - to ask for exemptions! I too am stuck in the middle, but I hope a good education is what will keep my kids from being in the same place, which is why we moved to Nazareth. Is 4.25% a reasonable yearly increase to expect a growing District to adhere to? Not every year, I am sure the Districts that adhered to the cap this year will be asking for exemptions next year. Most of the budget is tied up in teacher and administrative salaries and health insurance which increase at least 6% annually on average. If we cut into these much our good teachers and administrators will begin to leave, is that what we want? Inflation in the Lehigh Valley is near 7%, my RCN bill goes up 10% annually, is 7% really too much to ask for an investment in our children, our future? I agree the turf and stadium improvements seem unnecessary, and is where we should be looking to cut.
John----
Ross
Can we expect this much of a tax hike for the next few years to come or will it be the standard 3-4%?
Anon 5:47, everything has gone up. i cringe everytime i go to a gas station. inflation has hit all over the place. what i think alot of people are furious over in this district are the "wide open" spending sprees we seem to go on. Ross on the main page noted that the boards answer for this is going to be "this is what the people wanted", i personally havent heard a huge public outcry for people who want any of this. out of 30000 people 200 want a swimming pool? i really had wished they would let the voters decide on these "extras" ..
lets hope for brighter days ahead!
Anon 5:47
I have to disagree with you on several points. I agree Nazareth has many good teachers but I think the administration is top heavy. I also think that Lesky started out as a good superintendent, but has now become power hungry and has the school board eating out of his hands. I would have rather had him seek employment elsewhere than receive the raise he just got. He has not only alienated the teachers, but his inflated demands for things the district doesn't need, while at the same time making cuts on items that would be beneficial to the district, is reprehensible. He has no concern for the "average Joe" in Nazareth who cannot afford a large tax increase.
As I understand it, the index is based on the cost of living/inflation for a given district, which is why they are all roughly equal.
I noted in a previous post (read it here) that the Morning Call indicated the inflation in the LV has surged, to 6.8% last year, the highest in over 20 years.
In light of that, maybe the school tax increase doesn't seem like much, but how much of a raise did you get last year? If it wasn't 7% then you are behind. If the district goes over its 4.2%, then you are that much further behind.
The borough was able to hold the line on taxes, while the school district originally sought a 10% hike.
My point regarding the people wanting something is going to come down to who shows up at the meeting. As you say, a group of people lobby for a few weeks and they get a pool. I've seen it before when music and band programs were threatened to be cut. The Board had a budget, held a meeting, then added the programs that existed back in, raised taxes, and said the people wanted it.
This year we cut 5% from the athletic budget and we cut teacher training programs (which I'm surprised no one from the union has contested) as well as EPED positions, but no one said anything.
The meeting on the 25th will indicate how much more in taxes we will pay, and the people advocating for additions will be the ones the board point to as the people wanting to have them.
I'd love to see a room full of people advocating for cuts, but I don't imagine that happening.
Happy Easter!
Ross
Honestly in your opinion... Imagine 2000 people showing up at the meeting and all arguing and all in disgust over whats happening... BE HONSEST---- do you think it would change anything? Someone walks in with a petiton wih 3500 signatures of disgruntled taxpayers saying not to build a pool? do you think it would change anything? the estimates of the new middle school come in around 70 million without a pool? the pool would cost an additional 6.5 million...hmmmm what do you think our intelligent board would do?
my point is id love to show up and complain, i just wonder anymore if its even worth it.
Unfortunately it only seems to work the other way around, 30 people show up to advocate to save music, 60 show up to save art, and another group shows up to save its program, they all get approved, the Board says we did what the people wanted, taxes go up.
For whatever reason, when the call is to cut or reduce, it is not acted upon.
And thank god for those 90 who show up to save art and music---dread the day those get cut to subsidize even more outrageous athletic facilities-
They were chosen to be cut, because they knew they'd be saved.
It gave the Admin and Board advocates for a tax hike, just like the swim team advocated for a pool, when the discussion should have been about the entire building.
They are playing politics with programs to get tax hikes approved and I'm still not convinced they've looked hard at other spending areas not related to student programs (athletic or arts).
How nice it must be to have a job that pays over a million dollars in eight years. With the perspective that supplies the area taxes must seem quite reasonable. And this is really what it all seems to be about...perspective. I say the district should be funded by an income tax, as this is the best way to more evenly bear the burden.
Post a Comment