.‘Hard times’ in Unionville-Chadds Ford - Chester County Press

.‘Hard times’ in Unionville-Chadds Ford

by Olivia Ceccarelli ,Staff Writer

The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District may be suffering next year with fewer teachers, increased class sizes, and eliminated programs for students and the community. These and other cuts totaling more than the $1.1 million budget shortfall created by reduced state funding were discussed at a special finance meeting on Tuesday, March 29 that was attended by about 50 members from the public, mostly teachers and district staff.

In February, when the board approved a preliminary budget for the 2011-2012 school year, it was confident it did not need to raise property taxes by more than 1 percent in Chester County. The board did not move forward in seeking exceptions from the state that would allow the district to raise taxes beyond the Act 1 limit of 1.4 percent.

After Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett released his preliminary state budget in March, district officials realized they were off the mark by about $1.1 million because of reduced revenue from the state. The district had predicted a reduction in the basic education subsidy, down by $300,000, because it was supplemented by stimulus funding that disappeared this year. The district was surprised by the loss of the $97,000 in block grant funding, and especially by the $89,000 eliminated for reimbursement for students attending charter schools. The majority of the loss in state revenue came from the $613,000 the state may not be reimbursing for employees’ Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll taxes for employee retirement. The state is discussing changing the formula for reimbursement, from 50 percent to about 15 percent for U-CF next year.

The board now needs to determine if it would raise taxes up to the Act 1 limit, as well as identify additional expenditure reductions and sources of revenue. “This was an exercise the administration did not welcome,” stressed Superintendent Sharon Parker.

U-CF is looking at sweeping cuts across the district. Parker noted that the potential cuts presented were about $600,000 in excess of the $1.1 million the district lacked, and so there are choices to be made. First, the district would consider tightening up budgets for building allocations, administrative departments, energy management, night security, and summer maintenance. It may have to dip into the capital reserve by $75,000. Also, the community program SAGE, where senior citizens tutor students, may be cut out completely. For employees, the district is looking to find efficiencies in health care and force two furlough periods, one day in July and three days over winter break. The furloughs alone would save the district more than $100,000. There is also talk of a one-year pay freeze for all district positions.

At this time, the board is not looking to cut middle school athletics, as neighboring districts may be forced to. However, the district may raise activity fees for a total gain of $50,000 for next year.

Deeper cuts, should the district need to go that far, jeopardize professional and staff positions. While the district is hoping for retirements, it isn’t ruling out the possibility of laying off six or so people. First in danger: clerical and para-professional positions. Second: three to four positions in guidance and social work. Finally, one elementary teacher may be let go, resulting in increased class sizes, as well as one middle school German teacher, eliminating that program, a middle school Learning-To-Learn teacher, a high school family and consumer science teacher, a high school physical education teacher, and a computer applications teacher. The district would consider doing replacement hiring, such as adding a world languages teacher, to fill program gaps.

The board had hoped that some unsettled business, whose financial savings could impact this year’s budget, could be resolved in time. One constant point of contention has been a new teachers’ contract – the district would like to see a contract that reflects modest pay increases and a less costly health care plan. It’s unlikely that a new contract reflecting district savings or otherwise will be agreed upon by both the district and the teachers’ union before it would make a difference for the 2011-2012 budget.

The district has also learned from a study released earlier in the month that privatizing transportation would be less expensive than the current in-house system. The district is beginning the process of seeking bids from busing contractors, which should be received in time to make a decision by June. If the district is to contract out, those savings would appear in the 2011-2012 budget. The district will also be entertaining a custodial study to evaluate effectiveness and efficiencies, but it would not be made in time for incorporation in the final budget.

Emotions started to come out as the magnitude of potential cuts became more apparent to audience members. Some teachers were offended that the board spoke as if they weren’t part of the tax base. Guidance staff members were worried that cuts in their department may be harmful to at-risk students. Overall, audience members were concerned about the apparent flippant attitude with which the board presented teacher layoffs. One young woman suggested that sessions be videotaped so that board members could review their behavior. “I’m not liking totally what I’m seeing,” she said. “There seems to be some boredom, fatigue, lack of interest, rolling eyes,” she continued. “You’re talking about people’s jobs.”

Board President Timotha Trigg gently reminded folks that all board members were district residents and that the majority had kids going through the schools.

School officials themselves displayed frustration because they were in a tough position, especially regarding the budget calendar. The state requires Pennsylvania school districts to come out with a preliminary budget in February and a final budget in June. The state, meanwhile, has consistently disrespected its own July 1 deadline for approving a final budget for the past eight years. Usually by the time schools know exactly how much money they’ll get from the state, it’ll be too late to raise taxes. The penalties for not adhering to the deadlines are fines and the removal of the superintendent.

Between now and final budget determination, the superintendent will be meeting with Sen. Andrew Dinniman (D) and other local legislators. School officials are also encouraging public participation. There is detailed information on the district Web site, as well as an e-mail address for suggestions. The proposed final budget will be released at the May work session, and the board will vote on the final budget in June. The district will be holding a community meeting on April 14 at 7 p.m. in the Unionville High School cafeteria to hear from parents and residents and continue budget discussions.

After all, “We can’t sit and blindly cross our fingers and say this just can’t happen,” said Business Manager Bob Cochran.

“These are hard times in Chester County,” said Trigg gravely.