Board Members Discuss Budget Cuts and Tax Increases

Board Members Discuss Budget Cuts and Tax Increases

The Octorara Finance Committee and Board of Directors met on Monday, February 22, 2016. Eight members were in attendance. Hank Oleyniczak was absent, and Linda Bicking was the first to attend a meeting electronically.

Status of State Funding

Despite current issues, Governor Wolf has a proposed budget, for the 2016-2017 school year, that adds $200 million to Basic Education Funding and $50 million to Special Education. This is on top of a budget he has not gotten the State Assembly to pass. If Wolf gets his way, the Octorara Area School District would receive $692,302 in State funds above 2014-2015 levels.

The Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials (PASBO) has made their own projections based on the amounts already distributed as a “best guess” for 2016-2017 increases. Based on those projections, the Octorara Area School District could expect to receive an increase of $422,344 above 2014-2015 levels. However, amid the uncertainty, the District is moving forward with the budget process factoring a zero increase.

2016-2017 Budget Summary

The current Draft Budget included $52.4 million. Existing revenue is  $49.4 million. This requires the District to find or cut $2.97 million to cover the difference.

How we are currently looking to pay for it:

  • 3% Property Tax increase – $964,727 in new revenue
  • Budget Contingency – $350,000 removed from budget
  • Debt Service Savings – $340,000 credit from bond refinancing
  • Budget Cuts – $420,000

This leaves a deficit of $895,996 that will need Reserve Fund Balance. If we receive the projected $422,344 increase from the State, that deficit would change to $473,652.

Why should you be concerned?

For years, the District was passing budgets showing deficits that needed the Reserve to balance. The reason for concern now is these deficits are now real. In the past, the District over budgeted to the point that by the end of each year, rather than having a $1 million deficit, they were gaining $1 million surpluses.

Starting in 2013-2014, the District started to have real deficits, requiring using Reserve Funds. This was caused by allowing the budgets to grow at a rate greater than the Act 1 limit. The Act 1 limit controls how much a District can increase taxes. It does not limit the growth of budgets. Over the years, new spending (such as going to full-day kindergarten, the iPad program, and armed security) have been the drivers.

You may be saying, “But Tim, What about PSERS?” It is true that the District’s contribution to the Pennsylvania Public School Employee’s Retirement System has driven up costs. However, think about this in terms of your household budgets. If you are paying your bills and able to save, is it a good idea to take on extras beyond your means? If you buy an expensive car that forces you to dip into savings to pay your bills… well, it is not the electric company’s fault. Is it?

When the District built the Intermediate School, they bought more house than they needed, adding to our debt. Other new spending, like full-day kindergarten and the iPad program, have continued to push costs higher, beyond what the District could afford. So, now the District is essentially house rich and cash poor.

Alternative Tax Increases

We are truly living in Bizarro World when Tim Alexander is arguing for the need to tax to the Act 1 limit, and Brian Norris is “concerned” about the impact to the community. It was just a few short months ago that Norris supported taking exemptions, and pushing property tax increases to close to 5%. Now, he is concerned a 3% increase is too much for the community.

As a result, the Board was presented with a spreadsheet showing the revenue generated by lower taxes.

  • 0.5% – $160,667
  • 1.0% – $321,333
  • 1.5% – $482,000
  • 2.0% – $642,677
  • 2.5% – $803,333
  • 3.0% – $964,727

Back in August, I agreed I would vote for a tax increase up to the Act 1 limit if there was a flat budget, meaning zero increase from 2015-2016 total expenses. I agreed to this because of the financial reality of the District. The Reserve Fund is shrinking. The Capital Expense Fund is disappearing. Two years of keeping taxes flat while allowing the budget to grow at 3% and 3.5% accelerated financial issues. In my opinion, the best and the only option is to get the deficit to zero. Then, going forward, control spending to more reasonable levels.

Norris, back at the beginning of the budget process, expressed frustration that there wasn’t support to take exemptions and push property taxes beyond the Act 1 limit. We did not agree on the cause of the financial crisis or the solution, but we did both see the need to find a way to get the deficit to zero. Today, he seems to see the deficit differently. I’m not sure what changed.

If we don’t resolve the deficit this year, there will be the need for more cuts next year. We will start the 2017-2018 budget process in the red between $400,000 and $800,000 before any expenditure increases. This means the first 0.5 to 1 mill of any tax increase that year will go directly to paying the deficit from the 2016-2017 budget. The Reserve and Capital Expense Funds will continue to disappear, and we are one step closer to a major financial collapse and not being able to pay our bills.

Budget Goals

At the Finance Committee Meeting, Sam Ganow asked Board members about budget goals. He wanted to know if there was the support to push cuts greater than the already $420,000. The Capital Expense Fund is disappearing with no way to replenish it, risking the ability to make facilities repairs over the next few years.

Also, the spending down of the Reserve Fund will hit a policy wall in 3 years, and even if we change the policy the benefit is short-lived. If we continue deficit spending and the Reserve Fund goes to zero then there will come a day when there is not enough money to pay bills, and the cuts to resolve that will be massive in comparison to what is being talked about today.

As the discussion went around the table, besides myself, other Board members wanted to see what the $420,000 will look like before agreeing to increase the goal. In fact, some of the conversation seemed to indicate there was not a consensus on even approving cuts to the initial goal. I may be getting the wrong sense of what is going on, but I fear that in the minds of some Board Members, the initial goal may have been smoke and mirrors to just say “we tried.”

Numbers don’t lie. There needs to be a major change or the money simply runs out. It can be fixed with massive cuts, It can be fixed with massive tax increases, It can be fixed with a combination of cuts and tax increases. But half-hearted efforts do little to nothing.


7 thoughts on “Board Members Discuss Budget Cuts and Tax Increases

  1. Someone needs to do something. I don’t think I’m just speaking for my family but all seniors who are having to sell there homes that they have had for years. You have to start making everyone pay not just home owners, go according to people’s wages. I haven’t had any children in school since 1991 . It’s not fair people have children in school and don’t pay a cent . Please get things on the right order and help seniors also.

      • I believe there are many people in our district who rent their homes and do not pay property taxes. Also, we have seen many foreclosures in our district in recent years which adds to the burden. What about the students in our district that are homeless or economically disadvantaged? Those families probably do not pay the taxes that the rest of us pay. In addition, do all of the students that attend our schools actually reside within the district? I think some would be surprised…

      • Carie … The people in the district who rent their homes are paying property taxes via their rent money. Landlords aren’t about to not include that in the cost of monthly rent.

    • Thanks for commenting Linda. The District is limited in how revenue is raised. SB76 would have changed the way schools would be funded, using earned income and sales taxes. That bill was defeated in the State Senate.

      The District has been going down a rabbit hole since 2005/6. And every time there was a choice to make a course correction, the decision was to dig the hole deeper. If the deficits are not fixed this year, with responsible budgets going forward, then things get worse. Every year that goes by, the needed tax increases and needed spending cuts to fix the problem grows. If the problem is not fixed before the Reserve and Capital funds are fully depleted, we are in serious trouble.

    • Apartment dwellers on the other hand pay a lot less than homeowners.In Pa there are 30% that live in a apartment the buildings are taxed like a home lets say a building holds ten apartments the property tax is 10,000 you are looking at 1,000 tax per person living in that apartment and they make up 30% of the children in school.

  2. Norris must have had his home appraised, every time there is a tax hike property value goes down.What happens people get a new appraisal which will be lower property tax . The never ending circle continues. Tim ; is sb76 dead i heard it is not. We all need to send Mike Stack a heartfelt letter on his blunder. With a 3% tax increase we are looking at 100% tax increase in 12 years .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s