Plum School Board still divided on tax increase
Joe Tommarello doesn't agree with the tax increase proposed in the 2014-15 preliminary budget by four fellow Republican Plum School Board members.
Tommarello also isn't happy with the four Democrats' proposal to use money from a fund for capital improvements such as buildings and other projects to balance the $58.1 million spending plan.
After a three-hour finance committee meeting on June 17, the board remained at a stalemate as board members prepare to vote on a final budget on June 30 — the last day to approve a balanced spending plan to submit to the state.
Without a balanced budget, employees would not receive paychecks and tax bills cannot be sent out, board President Sal Colella said.
Four Republicans advocated a .54-mill tax increase to move the $58.1 million spending plan for a vote at the June 30 meeting. The increase would generate about $790,000 for the district, officials have said.
The preliminary budget sets the tax rate at 19.3 mills. That reflects a 0.54-mill increase — the most that the state allows the school district to increase taxes by without first getting voters' approval. The so-called Act 1 tax index is tied to an inflation-based formula.
The proposed increase means a taxpayer who owns a home that has the district's median assessed value, $110,000, would pay an additional $59 a year in property taxes next school year.
Board member Kevin Dowdell said a tax increase is necessary this year to cut down on deficits in future budgets and preserve money in the district's reserve fund.
Dowdell doesn't support taking money from the capital fund, a plan supported by the four Democrats on the board.
“I am worried about the future,” he said.
Four Democrats favor board member Tom McGough's plan to use money from the district's capital fund and eliminate the services of Kelly Educational Staffing that finds substitute workers for the district.
McGough said earlier this week that the total in the district's capital fund is $19,385,653, including $2.5 million that was transferred two years ago from the district's fund balance.
“Our final budget alternative stands firm on our commitment to not raise taxes, not cut any programs and would not take any money from our district's fund balance,” McGough said. “We would simply draw back a very small portion of our capital account that has ballooned to well over $19 million.”
McGough said he would look specifically at the portions of the $19 million that are not designated for future building projects and/or money that could be saved with “better stewardship” when the designated building projects are done.
McGough said as an example, the district saved nearly $1 million of the total project cost to build the girls softball field at the high school rather than at Pivik Elementary School.
Tommarello said he supports a smaller tax increase that would garner the district about $350,000 and “cutting expenditures.”
Board member Michelle Stepnick pressed Tommarello to the areas he would cut. Initially, Tommarello said he didn't value one program over another.
“What do you want to cut?” Stepnick continued to ask Tommarello. “If you have another plan, say it out loud.”
Tommarello suggested cutting two librarian positions and two foreign-language positions at Oblock Junior High School and using a portion of the money from the capital fund to balance the budget.
Karen Zapf is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-871-2367 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.