ShareThis Page

Baldwin-Whitehall budget balanced with tax hike, staffing cuts

| Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Two years after Baldwin-Whitehall school board members lowered taxes by 2 mills, a new board majority says it's working to “right the ship,” raising taxes and making staffing cuts to balance the 2016-17 budget without draining the district's reserve.

“Don't think anybody is taking this lightly,” Karen Brown, board vice president and chair of the finance committee, said.

Board members voted 7-2 on June 22 to adopt the district's $62.4 million 2016-17 budget that included a 0.83-mill tax increase, raising the tax rate to 19.25 mills. The budget also included cuts of more than 12 professional and eight service employee positions through attrition or furloughs. Board members Martin Michael Schmotzer and Elliot Rambo dissented on votes for the budget, possible furloughs and curtailment of programs.

Of the 12.6 full-time professional positions set for elimination in 2016-17, Superintendent Randal Lutz said, seven likely will come through retirements, two through voluntary demotions and 4.6 through furloughs.

Eight full-time equivalent service employee positions set for the chopping block are to be determined based on an early retirement incentive offered by the district — and approved by the board June 22 — that encourages full-time service employees with 10 years in the district to leave early.

“We don't know,” Lutz said of how many will leave through furloughs or attrition. “Right now, we've approved an early retirement incentive, so all of that has to happen first. They have the month of July to work out the details and make decisions.”

The cuts, which save about $2.1 million, were made based on enrollment and program changes, Lutz said.

Program changes include the elimination of third-grade orchestra, which had a “high level of dropouts” during the year — as much as 50 percent some years, Lutz said. Orchestra programs now will be offered starting in fourth grade.

“Ninety-nine percent of the kids will not see any difference,” Lutz said of the changes made for 2016-17.

The budget does not anticipate receiving $961,255 in PlanCON funding, or state reimbursements for past construction projects, and instead uses money from the district's $5.58 million fund balance to balance the budget.

“PlanCON is out. Until we have it in hand, we will not include PlanCON in our budget process,” Lutz said.

The $1.3 million anticipated from the state in PlanCON funding for 2015-16 still has yet to be received, leaving the district's deficit at $3.5 million instead of the initially expected $2.5 million, Lutz said.

Schmotzer chastised his colleagues for not including the PlanCON money in the budget and for making cuts to staffing.

“We will get this money,” Schmotzer said, as he even offered to “stake my school board seat” on the district getting the funds from the state.

Schmotzer wanted to use the PlanCON money from 2015-16, which he says is coming, to balance the 2016-17 budget.

“Wait a second. I feel like that movie ‘Dave' where he starts figuring a budget out,” Schmotzer said. “Yeah, it's really that simple.”

Lutz said balancing the 2016-17 budget with money anticipated for 2015-16 doesn't work.

“Taking the PlanCON money out is fiscally responsible and conservative,” board President Tracy Macek said.

The board majority repeated that the district's reserve is dwindling. The district lost $6 million in revenues because of a 2-mill tax decrease in 2014-15, business manager Mark Cherpak said.

“The last three years, we were running a deficit budget,” Lutz said.

Brown said she hopes this will start to turn things around.

Stephanie Hacke is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-388-5818 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me