At the risk of creating more controversy that has nothing to do with solutions —I responded to a post on Community….Matters from John Peterson who denounced the “GOP” lead school board driven by GOP issues. I will stand by each and every budget decision made during my time on the board, and I can assure you that the largest component of tax increases related to staffing were a direct result of a community study we undertook in response to KIDS COUNT, an extremely well-funded group that pushed for and achieved class size targets well below anything we had ever experienced. During times of lucrative transfer tax revenues, and new development with a rising tax base, these costs were absorbed. Kevin Grewell was elected to the board as a Republican after switching parties to get the TTRC endorsement, presumably because there was no organized process for running as a democrat. In defeating an incumbent Republican for the seat (Rick Zagol), Kevin ran on a platform of spending more for smaller class sizes. MUCH smaller in some cases. There were several board members who had previously been associated with the Democratic party but switched to Republican registration absent any benefit to a Democratic affiliation.
There was a claim made on the blog comments that TESD services since 1996-2000 have been degraded, with lost of activity ….the size of the population has simply grown exponentially. And the cost of housing in this community has risen to levels that new residents who choose to purchase here come with many, many expectations.
Can we please talk about the realities and not the theories. The issues on the table absolutely were predictable. The health care increases are easy to point to — but it has happened before and is the reason the district has a fund balance. $4M of fund balance right now is designated for “retirement obligations” which means severance and other issues for sitting and retired administrators. When I attempted last year to look at the contracts of these people, I was met with anger and changes in policy as to how to look at these numbers.
It’s fine to understand the reasons behind the increase, but not okay to suggest that they were surprises. Assessment appeals are quite typical in a down market. Countywide reassessment was done in 1998 — the CLR since that time has gone from the goal of 100 (meaning market value would equal assessed value) down to 53. Actually 2008 showed a rise to 53 from earlier levels — but since the CLR reflects the percentage of market value that the assessment should reflect, a steadily decreasing value ultimately predicts that the effort of reassessment is now worthwhile as the outcome would be significant enough to undertake it.
I apologize that these are not “sound bite” comments, but as you know from previous postings, I have a great deal of information to share and would like us to all understand the implications of our current tax level.
One other response, however, is that the teachers’ contracts rarely try to work around economic predictions — and the PSEA (if you read their website right now) advocate for growing the starting salary so that there is a shorter time to reach “career” earnings (the top step) and less “percentage increase” required per year….the local salary schedules reflect a competitive look at neighboring districts along with a formidable staff of PSEA staff running numbers and making offers or responding to district offers — all the while knowing that the elephant in the room is a strike. Board members know the damages of a strike — so the abililty to influence the outcome is severely limited and is only likely to come out less in the union’s favor with a willingness not to blink. Where would the community come down if our schools were closed for two weeks? (I have referred to this before, but due to some legal conclusions reached at the state level, teachers do not lose any salary or benefits during a strike…I can explain if you have any questions about it).