NA, costs & taxes
NA, costs & taxes
North Allegheny's superintendent posted a letter in June on the school district's website to indicate the possibility of a referendum to increase taxes by $10 million for 2013-14. Now, the school board is considering the administration's recommendation to close one elementary school to save costs (“Community group questions North Allegheny enrollment projections,” Dec. 6 and TribLIVE.com).
The problem seems to be that savings from the closing amount to only $850,000, which still leaves a deficit of $9.15 million and brings us back to the possibility of a referendum on a tax increase of that magnitude in the May primary.
This follows three consecutive years of tax increases, when our millage has gone from 18.99 to 20.923, a little more than a 10-percent increase. A $10 million tax increase next year would add close to 8 percent on top of that. And this is not the end, because the district is projecting annual tax increases for the foreseeable future.
Per-pupil cost is $15,381. This means NA is already spending more on education than any other district in suburban Allegheny County. Continued tax increases will take our costs into the stratosphere.
The veteran board members who have been through it all the last few years have to look at the whole plan differently and come up with a different solution. What we are looking at is unacceptable and I predict that the $10 million referendum would not pass.
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.
- Not man for job
- Justices behaving badly
- Corbett, not Wolf
- Working hard in fast food
- Ride-sharing’s advantages
- Failing to lead
- Corbett, the reformer