Posted by Taxes are not going up!! on May 22, 2007 at 08:21:30 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: Two Questions.. posted by jon on May 21, 2007 at 22:18:08 (EST):
: : : : : : : I hope someone in the know can answer. 1) What is the reimbursement from the state for transportation? I know the Dept. of Ed. does contribute money to districts to help defray the districts' bussing costs.
: : : : : : : 2) Concerning the number of professional saff. How much duplication is there among the four high schools due to state mandiates? As an example, schools must have certified teachers for special needs students. Wouldn't such mandates require additonal staff members in all the schools that could be reduced by combining?
: : : : : : Let's use ASD documents to answer your first question. According to the budget, pupil transportation is 7,250,000. On page 35, the state transportation reimbursement is 4,720,000. This means the state reimburses us 65 per cent of our costs. What is the formula for reimbursement? I really do not know. Maybe someone here can ask a school board member or ask the Administration. Please, let's stick to the facts.
: : : : : There are at least 2 problems with what New Poster asked.
: : : : : 1. This person seems to be implying that if "the state" is paying for it , it is okay to waste these funds. News flash New Poster, "state" tax dollars are still tax dollars and should not be wasted.
: : : : : 2. If "the state" is reimbursing 65% then the district (property taxpayers) must pay for 45%. Right now this 45% equals 2,530,000. If we consolidate this figure will be 45% of a figure much higher than 7,250,000. Whatever the percentage is that the district ends up paying for, it is a ridiculous sum. All you have to do is look back to the last attempt at consolidation. Transportation costs alone were cause for the board to reverse it's decision and deconsolidate. The difference with what they are talkng about now is the added cost of construction and the fact that we would be locked in to that choice, regardless what it ended up costing.
: : : : : BTW if you want to talk about "state" reimbursement, let's talk about the fact that the level of "state" reimbursement is 10% higher for renovations than it is for new construction.
: : : : : Also if there is uneccessary dupliction of staff, then they need to fire some teachers. There are several teachers that teach at multiple schools. They either teach at different schools on different days or they teach half the day at one school and half at the other. Now before you go off and say that it doesn't make sense to have these teachers driving around from school to school...that's still a lot cheaper than bussing the kids from all over the county to a central location.
: : : : How do you figure that the district pays 45% if the state reimburses 65%?
: : : Sorry...that should have been 35%.
: : : The dollar amount $2,530,000 is correct though. I just subtracted what "the state" reimbursed from the total transportation cost.
: : : Good call. I erred. I'll admit it.
: : : The bottom line though is that any "state" reimbursement is STILL taxpayer dollars and if "the district" is currently responsible for $2,530,000, then "the district" will be responsible for even more under a consolidation. It's already been proven.
: :
: : No one is arguing that busing costs will be up. I totally am in agreement. Will you agree that the amount budgeted for salaries will go down if layoffs are implemented? Will you agree that there will be savings if we got our pupil to teacher ratio up from 12.5 to 1 to 14.5 to 1? Just to reject everything because of busing is wrong. Letr's look at the whole picture. Being hobbled because of an injury and off work for a couple of weeks, I now have the time to get involved and actually research things for myself. Currently I am looking at the Pa. DPE regulations on reimbursements for new building as opposed to fixing up what is already there. I am finding the formula very confusing to follow. Here is the website.
: : www.pde.state.pa.us/constr_fac/cwp/view.asp?a=118q=47064
: : Hope this works for you.
: No, nobody's arguing that busing cost won't go down. They just IGNORE that issue completely. This is a very BIG issue.
: Yes, I will agree the amount budgeted for salaries will go down IF layoffs are implemented.
: It'll never happen.
: Yes, I will agree that operational costs will go down IF the janitorial staff (as well as office and cafeteria staff) is trimmed?
: It'll never happen.
: Yes, I will agree that there will be savings IF we got our pupil to teacher ratio up from 12.5 to 1 to 14.5 to 1?
: It'll never happen.
: Look at West Hills. Somebody else posted these numbers as if they were a great savings. I don't know as to the accuracy of them but the person claimed a reduction in the number of teachers and a WHOPPING $200K savings in salaries by closing down 2 schools. They closed TWO schools, which SHOULD have eliminated most, if not all, of the office workers, janitors and cafeteria workers, AND teachers...yet somehow these closures only resulted in a $200k savings...FOR THE SCHOOLS INVOLVED. How many were just moved to another school in the district? Was there really any savings to the district at all? If so, why are our taxes going UP next year?
The taxes are not going up. One thing I read troubled me is that the modular classrooms that are to be used at Lenape will cost one amount and the nearby Baptist church was going to set up classrooms so they didn't have to use thet moudulars, and at rate where some thirty thousand dollars could be saved and the board turned that down. Does this board really want to save money?