Brubaker's school-tax proposal knocked - Lancasteronline 03/18/2011

Brubaker's school-tax proposal knocked
Senator says bill would give taxpayers greater power; educators say it would force them to cut vital programs
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era

Updated Mar 18, 2011 21:03

By BRIAN WALLACE, Staff Writer

Local school officials are criticizing a proposal by state Sen. Mike Brubaker to limit school property tax hikes, saying it would result in program cuts while failing to address problems with Pennsylvania's public school funding system.

Brubaker, of Warwick Township, plans to introduce legislation this month that would do away with a mechanism most school districts have used to raise taxes above limits mandated under Act 1.

The bill, expected to be introduced this month, would bar districts from seeking exceptions, which allow them to exceed their base Act 1 indexes to fund expenditures such as pensions and mandated special-education programs that are out of their control.

The legislation would force districts to put any tax increase above their Act 1 indexes — the average for Lancaster County next year is 1.7 percent — up for a referendum vote.

Forcing a public vote "will allow for a more robust dialogue between school districts and residents regarding school district expenditures and the ability of taxpayers to pay for them," Brubaker, a Republican, said.

But school officials say the public is unlikely to approve any tax-hike referendum, and districts would be forced to cut programs to pay for mandated expenses they can't control.

Michael Leichliter, superintendent of Penn Manor School District, pointed out that pension costs, which are established on the state level, are slated to skyrocket in the next few years, and schools are mandated by federal law to provide whatever special-education services their pupils need.

"If the exceptions are eliminated, the only choice that will remain is to drastically reduce educational programs for students," he said in an email.

Brubaker said his bill would give local taxpayers more control over their school taxes, something Act 1 has failed to do. Since 2007-2008, the state's school districts have received exceptions allowing them to raise taxes by up to $667 million, he said.

That number might be misleading, however, because many districts that seek exceptions don't end up using the full taxing ability.

That's what has happened here.

Of the county's 17 districts, 12 received exceptions last year for $11.6 million worth of expenditures, but only half the districts used them to exceed their base indexes.

Although they could have raised taxes by an average 6.1 percent — well above the 3.4 percent index for the county — the increases actually fell below the index, on average, at 3.34 percent.

County districts followed a similar pattern in 2009-2010.

This year, most county districts are again seeking exceptions, mainly because the average Act 1 index will be at an all-time low of 1.7 percent.

Gerry Huesken, superintendent of Conestoga Valley School District, said Brubaker's proposal to eliminate exceptions "is an easy step to take politically," but it doesn't address underlying funding problems.

"Those issues involve real solutions to rising health care costs, the pension issue and special-education expenditures," he said in an email.

"I would hope that we would first start with substantial discussions on a statewide health care plan, a more impactful solution to the pension crisis and greater (cost) containment or revenues for special-education costs.

"They are the tougher issues that should be addressed first. Of course, it is easier to limit the school districts, but how do we pay for these soaring costs?"

Brubaker agreed lawmakers need to take a hard look at the entire public school funding system and whether it relies too heavily on local taxes.

"I think we need to talk about education reform in a comprehensive manner," he said. "We should have a robust statewide conversation on … whether an appropriate amount comes from property taxes."

The Legislature already is reforming the system, he said, by introducing a series of bills designed to reduce costly state mandates on public schools.

Brubaker has sponsored a bill that would eliminate prevailing wage requirements on school construction projects, cutting labor costs by up to 25 percent, he said.

Other legislation in the pipeline would impose a moratorium on state requirements that teachers continue their education. That would save districts on tuition reimbursements and professional development costs, Brubaker said.

Another bill would increase the number of hours part-time school employees must work to join the pension system, reducing those costs for school districts.

Brubaker said he may consider changes to his bill to address concerns about special education and pension costs, but for now, he plans to eliminate exceptions altogether.

Constituents have told him they expected Act 1 would give them more say over taxation than the law now provides, he said.

But county school officials are dubious about residents approving any tax increase that exceeds the Act 1 index — no matter how badly it's needed.

Brenda Becker, Hempfield School District superintendent, said 70 percent of residents in most communities don't have children in public schools, "so the possibility of getting a majority of folks to vote for an increase in taxes is slim to none, regardless of the consequences."

Brubaker disagrees.

"I think that sells the taxpayers short," he said. "The taxpayers will reject taxation only if there's not a strong, viable argument for it."

bwallace@lnpnews.com

Read more: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/363937?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d83cf2b92572a2e%2C0#ixzz1H5ilpVvM