POTTSTOWN PA – The new tax target is 3 percent, the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors collectively determined Tuesday night (June 12, 2012).
Members of the board, who are racing to beat the clock and approve a final Pottsgrove School District budget for the 2012-2013 academic year before a June 29 state deadline, during the first of their two monthly meetings generally encouraged Business Administrator David Nester to find enough savings – about $100,000 worth in the $59 million spending plan – to lower its accompanying property tax rate increase to 3 percent.
Most, but not all, agreed. Board Secretary Philip Keogh, who officially resigned Tuesday and so won’t cast a final budget vote, continued to advocate an increase of less than 3 percent. Director Nancy Landes, on the other hand, contended that further reducing the tax increase may not be in the district’s best interest.
Under a tentative budget the board approved May 8, the tax rate increase currently is proposed at 3.54 percent, the maximum Pennsylvania will allow the district to charge next year. If ultimately approved “as is,” it would cost the average district property owner – one with a home valued at $120,000 – an additional $145 in taxes.
Nester told board members that, given savings now available because the district’s labor contract with its teachers has been approved, as well as other cuts he is recommending, the proposed rate increase could slide down to 3.27 percent. If the state comes through with $147,000 in grant money not already included in the budget, it can drop even further, he said.
“We’ve already got a lot of things behind us,” President Michael Neiffer concurred, an acknowledgment of the contract settlement directors approved earlier in the evening. “And I’d like a couple of additional weeks to dig into it (the budget) some more,” Nester added.
That’s when Neiffer polled his colleagues for their opinions on the increase.
“The closer we get to 3 (percent), the better,” Keogh responded. “Less than 3, better still, even if it’s only just a little bit under.”
“I’d hate to see us give up exceptions,” Landes volunteered, referring to state-granted permission to raise tax rates by specific amounts due to special expenses, like the now-completed construction of Ringing Rocks Elementary School. “I’d prefer to take when we can in taxes now, because we won’t have those exceptions in the future,” she said.
With the budget deadline now just two weeks away, the board set a special meeting date of June 26 at 7:30 p.m. in the district’s Kauffman Road offices to consider and approve a final budget. Due to Keogh’s imminent departure, Nester reminded board members the budget must pass with a minimum of five votes among eight remaining directors. “It will be important to have everyone show up,” he said.
Related (to the Pottsgrove School District 2012-2013 budget):
- In Pottsgrove Budget, Board Targets 3-Percent Tax Hike
- Pottsgrove Seeks Options In Reducing Next Budget
- Pottsgrove Board Approves $59.32M Tentative Budget
- Tentative Budget Approval On Pottsgrove’s Agenda
- Health Care Law Provisions Add To Pottsgrove Budget
- Pottsgrove Begins Its Deeper Look Into 2012-2013 Budget
- Tax Hike Shows In Preliminary Peek At Pottsgrove Budget
- Pottsgrove Model For Budget Force Gets Earlier Start
Related (to the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors’ June 12 meeting):
- In Pottsgrove Budget, Board Targets 3-Percent Tax Hike
- Pottsgrove Approves Budget-Stabilizing Teacher Contract
- Long-Time Pottsgrove Director Philip Keogh Resigns
- Pottsgrove Board Votes Tonight On Proposed Contract
Housing values are declining, cost of living continues to rise, many local residents working with much less. So why not raise school taxes? At some point the people have to say no. Putting together a citizen panel to recommend cuts and then not implementing those that might bruise some egos was a sham. It’s time that the school board grows a pair and does what needs to be done to get costs in line so the public does not have to continually bail them out!
The exceptions to annual school tax increase ceilings render the entire concept of a budget moot. You must consider all expenses in a budget or it is simply not a budget. And sometimes you have to do without.
If you visit a Web site such as zillow, you can see that Lower Pottsgrove taxes have been raised no less than 3% annually over each of the past three years as its residents labored to manage their own budgets during the Great Recession. Our school taxes are out of touch and out of control with economic realities.
Taxes affect the marketability of homes and residents’ quality of life. Lower Pottsgrove’s inability to contain property tax increases at a reasonable level, even in the direst of circumstances, shows a lack of leadership. A citizen’s panel that is truly independent sounds like a great idea.
Diane, thanks very much for your comment.
You consistently refer to “Lower Pottsgrove” township as a taxing entity, which of course it is. But the budget that is the subject of today’s story belongs to the Pottsgrove School District. It should be noted here that the district, and not the township, is responsible for the majority of property taxes you and I pay annually on the real estate we own. The school tax bill usually is 9-11 times higher than the combined county-township bill.
This is not a defense of the township – I don’t want to pay its tax increases either, no matter when they’re imposed – but Lower Pottsgrove often takes the rap for the tax load that in fact is attributable to the schools, and they’re different entities.
Joe – not sure how you got Diane from D. without access to the information that was not to be published, but you do have it right.
Sorry for the confusion. I sincerely hope, however, that lack of clarity on the taxing entity’s identity did not weaken the argument.
Dear D. Moorman:
Didn’t weaken your argument at all, and it’s a wholly valid one. I understood where you were coming from. However, in any given month, up to 30 percent of our fast-growing readership consists of newcomers who have never visited The Posts before and (mostly) were referred here by others. I offered my explanation for those who might not recognize their real estate is taxed by two entities, not just one.
Thanks again for your insight, and thanks, too, for reading The Post.