Tredyffrin Township . . . First Board of Supervisor Meeting of the New Year

Last night was the first Board of Supervisors Meeting for 2010.  Most of the meeting was about the necessary housekeeping for our local government . . . swearing-in of new supervisors (Kichline, Donohue, Richter) and also the election of the chair and vice chair of the Board.  Supervisor Lamina will serve as Chair and Supervisor Olson as Vice Chair of the Board.   It was curious to see how the seat assignments of the members of the Board — aside from the chair and vice chair, I wonder how the seating on the board is decided.  Can we read anything in to the placement from left to right as follows:  Donohue, DiBuonaventuro, Kampf, Lamina, Olson, Richter, Kichline.

The organizational meeting included the resolution to name the emergency services; adoption of the meeting schedule for the various township boards and approval of the consultants and law firms.  I wonder if the township reviews the contracts with the various consultants/firms yearly as part of the budget review process.  I wonder if these firms just become ‘grandfathered in’ and are status quo year after year.  Do you suppose their fees are discussed and whether they are negotiable? Due to the economy, many firms are having to adjust their fee schedules to remain competitive — should there be an expectation on the part of the township to ask for this kind of consideration of the companies doing business with the township.  Just a question.

Following the organizational meeting, there was a brief regular meeting.  In fact, Chair Lamina asked if any Board member or audience members had any new business.  The question was asked so quickly that at least one person I know missed the question and missed the opportunity to give her prepared written remarks. The pace was such last night if you blinked, you missed an opportunity to make comment or ask questions.  Supervisors neither offered an update on the contributions to-date nor did residents ask for a status report on the Fire Department contribution; guess it’s a good thing that we have this blog — otherwise, we would not know have a clue on the subject.

A Public Hearing on the Patriots Path Plan followed the Board of Supervisors meeting.  The consultants gave a slide presentation of the draft plan. Audience members spoke passionately both in favor of the plan and also some of the residents likewise related their concerns about the project, particularly about the width of the path, privacy, elimination of wildlife and trees and plants.  Residents in the Great Valley are in the process of putting together a survey and asked that the supervisors not vote last night.  The Board agreed to delay a decision to allow for further review and discussion; the plan will be revisited at the February Board meeting.

I have lived in the Great Valley for 25 years and I have never been to the Warner Spur/Cedar Hollow area to see the old railroad trail, location of the proposed Patriots Path.  I suggested to several Great Valley Association Board members that I think it would be a good idea for a field trip for supervisors and interested residents to visit the site.  I understand that this is private property owned by the Township so I would suggest perhaps a Sunday afternoon date that everyone could meet at a specific location and review some of the proposed path area.  It’s hard for some of us to visualize the path without having seen the area.  Perhaps the Sidewalks, Trails & Path Committee and also members of the Open Land Conservancy could be available to show the residents around.  Just an idea . . .

Understanding the Tredyffrin Easttown School District Budget Process

I attended last night’s Board of Supervisor Meeting and the Public Hearing for the Patriots Path Plan — more about that later today.  However, as a result I was unable to attend the TESD’s Finance Committee meeting held at the same time. Local Malvern resident Ray Clarke attended the Finance Committee meeting and provided his notes and personal observations from last nights meeting.  I appreciate Ray’s attendance at the Finance Committee and his remarks are provided following this posting. 

I admit to not fully understanding the school district’s budget process and unfortunately, the information available on the TESD website is limited.  With a potential of a 7.2% tax increase, I think that we need to all do our homework and get involved in this process.  I have been doing a bit of research about the actual school district budget process. I thought that the following questions and answers would benefit us to better understand the Tredyffrin Easttown School District school board budget.  I was able to find this information on PA state websites; if any of the details are incorrect, I would appreciate clarification.

Q. Is there a difference between the preliminary and final budget?
A . The preliminary and final budgets are distinct documents since the passage of Act 1 of 2006. The preliminary budget is the document that is adopted in January and the final budget is adopted not later than June 30th . Both Budgets may reflect the same amounts but the provisions of Act 1 of 2006 require the district to adopt either a preliminary budget or a resolution which binds the district to a tax increase of no more than the index.

Q. What is the proposed budget?
A . The proposed budget applies to both the preliminary and final budgets. The proposed budget is the budget that is put on public display prior to the board taking action on either the preliminary or final budget.

Q. What happens if the district does not adopt its budget by June 30th?
A . The budget is the district’s authority to incur expenditures. If the district does not adopt its budget on time then it may not make any expenditure for the new school year until a budget is passed. The district may however, continue to issue payment for items that were part of the prior year expenditures.

Q. The district is considering action on the proposed final budget but it does not contain a major expenditure item. Is the district permitted to increase its budget after it introduces the proposed final budget?
A . Yes. The district may increase the amount of spending during the public review and comment period. The limitation of the increase is to the index plus any approved exceptions.

Q. The district is considering action on the proposed final budget but it does not contain a major expenditure item. Is the district permitted to increase its budget beyond the adopted preliminary budget?
A . Yes. The district may increase the amount of spending during the public review and comment period for the final budget. However, the limitation of the increase is to the index plus any approved exceptions.

Q. May the real property tax mill rate be increased after the proposed preliminary budget is introduced?
A . Yes. The increase is subject to the index plus any exceptions that the district may qualify for, or proposed referendum question.

Q. May we introduce any of the budgets more than 30 days before adoption?
A . Yes. Act 1 of 2006 establishes a minimum time requirement. The district may introduce the preliminary and final budgets earlier if they choose.


The Following notes are from 4 January 2010 TESD Finance Committee Meeting as provided by Malvern resident Ray Clarke  

The Finance Committee took the next step in the process to get state approval for a potential tax increase in excess of the Act 1 index, requesting approval for exceptions that – if implemented – would lead to a property tax increase of 6.63% – 1.16 mills – half the township total millage!  Without the increase, the deficit would be $9.2 million.  Even with the increase there would be a $3.9 million deficit.  

There was no change in the administration cost reduction proposals presented at the last Committee meeting, which would reduce costs by $2.35 million, leaving the deficit still at $1.5 million. 

The Committee asked the Administration to come to the next Finance Committee on February 8th with a list of potential expenditure cuts that would erase the entire $9.2 million deficit, thus setting up the discussion in the other TESD Committees and the community to find a tradeoff between tax increases and program cuts.

Any tax increase for 2010/11 would have to be funded from property owners.  If the School district wanted to implement an EIT for 2011/12 it would have to give notice to the Township by November 2010 and would share the revenues with the Township.

The discussion suggested some emerging Board strategies:

  • Expect the state to come up with some kind of fix to the $7 million increase in pension contributions that contribute to the growth in deficit from the baseline $9.2 million in 2010/11 (above) to $25 million in 2012/13 (and beyond).  (Note: $11.5 million of the $29 million General Fund Balance is designated for PSERS Rate Stabilization.)
  • There are no overarching principles (tax increase caps, expense reduction goals) for dealing with the remaining $7-8 million a year increase in the deficit, beyond the general commitment to maintaining the quality of the district’s education program.
  • One target is for significant reduction is benefits costs in employee contracts beyond 2011/12.  (One commentator thought current benefits might be subject to Obamacare’s excise tax on rich programs!).  In the meantime, the Board would consider dipping into reserves to fund short term increases that are contracted. 
  • The idea of fees received a lot of traction.  For example $5-10 per day parking fee for CHS students.

Other new ideas (with no $ assigned) included: 

  • Outsourcing maintenance and janitorial and special education (to the IU)
  • Reducing legal costs (how?) 
  • Eliminating non-contract employee salary increases (4.5% in the preliminary budget)
  • Considering more actively the Teacher Early Retirement proposal (perhaps applicable to 6-7 staff with the right combination of age and longevity, worth $30-50,000 per retiree -but the net impact of course loaded with assumptions) 

The critical point was made that while small savings are indeed important and must be pursued, the district’s expenses are driven by compensation.  Since the rate is contracted, that can only be impacted by FTE reduction.  It is indeed possible that some reductions can be implemented with no reduction to quality (eg FLES, the Middle School curriculum changes already proposed, perhaps a 7 period day at CHS and the outsourcing programs), but we may be past much of the “low hanging fruit”, and reduced FTE will translate to a reduction in many prized programs.

So back to the ultimate question: what programs/class sizes does the community want and how are we prepared to pay for them?  There is an opportunity to get engaged as this process unfolds, and indeed to vote!

Note that, although our property tax millage may be low compared to some adjacent jurisdictions, the amount we pay is a combination of the rate and the assessed value, so just looking at the rate alone does not tell the whole story.  Our neighbors also differ greatly in residential/commercial mix.