PA School Data: Focus on School District of Cheltenham Township

Budget Update: Casino Gaming Refunds and More

2008-06-08T17:51:00.003-04:00

The School District of Cheltenham Township has nearly finished its budget for 2008 - 2009, with the final budget being scheduled to be voted for on 6/10/08. The budget totals $90,229,774, which represents a 5.16% increase in real estate taxes and a 5.71% increase in expenses over the 2007 - 2008 budget. However, when the first year of casino gaming funds is released in 2008 - 2009 to the School District, homeowners who have filed an approved Homestead exclusion, will see a decrease in their School District real estate taxes for 2008 - 2009.

The budget process this year showed a number of significant income and expense reclassifications due to apparent flawed accounting practices in past years. For example, though it defied a logical explanation, a line item showed more expenses for health care for a class of employees than it did in salary for the same class of employees for several years. This discrepancy and others were corrected during this year's budget process. Overall, the budget process showed significant improvements over recent years. Based on PA Act 1 limitations, the real estate tax increase for 2008 - 2009 was limited by PA law to a 5.16% increase.

As recently as 4/1/2008, $1,521,592 needed to be cut from the preliminary 2008 - 2009 budget to arrive at the 5.16 percent School District real estate tax increase limit allowed for 2008 - 2009. The latest publicly available budget shows a balanced budget with the key changes being:

A $635,502 refund from health insurance expenses from 2005 - 2006. Approximately $500,000 of this was used to offset part of the 2008 - 2009 budget increase.
A reduction in the increased transportation expenses by $648,000, which reflects increased transportation efficiencies by changing the start times at the Elkins Park School and the elementary schools so they can share buses. This change came after several years of citizens advocating for a review of high School District transportation costs and transportation policies.
$500,000 was used from the fund balance to help offset part of the 2008 - 2009 budget increase.
A reduction in three teaching positions was also used to reduce the amount of the budget increases.
Several items increased in their budgeted costs since the preliminary budget including the purchase of new high school math books, more funding for school libraries, and more funding for special education.

The School District also discussed number of fiscal policy changes they were making including:

A recommendation to use bond funds for capital expenses only, and a realization that the School District cannot go out and borrow at will. The School District recognized that bonds need to be paid back from operating budget, and that there is a problem with buying non capital items (less than 20 year life) with bond money.
Staff is developing line items for 2009 – 2010 for each school for equipment.
A move towards site based budgeting; to the building level.
A 5 to 8 percent fund balance goal.
Using budgeting as a management tool.
The need for a long-term capital improvement (facility plan) to be developed.

- - - -

Financial Comparison to Similar Sized Montco PA School Districts

2008-04-25T11:47:00.012-04:00

A few weeks ago, someone asked me to compare financial aspects of the Cheltenham School District to the Upper Dublin School District, which has about the same number of students as the Cheltenham School District. Both the Cheltenham and Upper Dublin School Districts are located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

After looking at 2005 - 2006 data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education for Montgomery County, and 2005 U.S. Census Data for Montgomery County, I decided to compare the Cheltenham Township School District, the Colonial School District, the Upper Dublin School District and the Wissahickon School District, all of which are school districts of similar size (in terms of students) and are located in Montgomery County. There are various and complex differences among the school districts that serve as the cause for the differences in the revenue and expenditures in the post.

The number of students is defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in terms of ADM or average daily membership. As shown in the table below, all school districts in this comparison are about the same size in terms of number of students.

The revenue source breakdown were relatively similar for the school districts, though the Cheltenham School District received the highest percentage shares from the federal and state revenue among the four school districts. The vast majority of funding for the four school districts was local revenue.

The reasons for differences in financial expenditures are varied, ranging from different financial resources, different needs, different programs, and different accounting systems. Also, the Cheltenham School District has recently been taking steps to change a number of their accounting, budget and fiscal management practices, which are not reflected in the 2005 - 2006 data presented below. That being said, the comparison of financial expenditure data can still be useful. As shown below, the Upper Dublin had the lowest 2005 - 2006 Total Expenditures by a significant amount, with the other three school districts being fairly close together. The expenditure data here represents part of the available data, and seeks to point out some areas of note.

The Cheltenham School District spent significantly more than the other school districts on administration in 2005 - 2006. In addition to the numbers below, the Cheltenham School District spent an additional $437,377.39 on Other Administration Services in 2005 - 2006 and the other school districts in this comparison spent $0.

2005 - 2006 Student Transportation was also an area, where the Cheltenham School District spent significantly more than the other school districts.

2005 - 2006 Community Services was also an area, where the Cheltenham School District spent significantly more than the other school districts.

2005 - 2006 Building Improvements was an area, where the Cheltenham School District spent significantly less (corrected on 05.06.08) than the other school districts.

Other Expenditures and Financing Uses and Debt Service, Other Expenditures, and Financing Uses were negligible or non existent for for the Cheltenham School District.

I would like to end by acknowledging the new Google Charts, and the new EditGrid googlechart mashup, which were used to produce the charts in this post.

- - - -

2008 - 2009 Budget Update

2008-04-16T17:11:00.003-04:00

The School District of Cheltenham Township held a Budget Hearing on 4/15/08. A revised draft budget dated 4/1/2008 was discussed, as were other changes made after the revised draft budget. Before the other changes were discussed $1,521,592 needed to be cut from the budget to arrive at the approximately 5.16 percent School District real estate tax increase limit allowed for 2008 - 2009. These changes included:

CLASP (federal) additional $81,000 in revenue.
Transportation (state) subsidy additional $62,000 in revenue.
Medical Insurance additional $500,000 in revenue from a reconciliation of 2005 - 2006 medical insurance expenses as part of a $635,502 refund for 2005 - 2006 medical insurance expenses.
End of renting a sound system for High School at $10,000 per production and buying a sound system using part of the remaining 2005 - 2006 medical insurance refund.

The end result last night was a draft 2008 - 2009 School District budget that had $90,208,955 in revenue and $91,151,587 in expenses. In other words, over $900,000 must be cut in expenses and/or found in new non real estate tax revenue for the 2008 - 2009 budget before it is finished and approved by 6/10/08.

At the budget hearing there was also discussion about the goal of increasing the budget reserve, ideally to an amount of 8 percent of the budget and having an additional capital reserve line in the budget. The fact that bonds should only be used for capital items with a life span of 20 or more years was discussed. The need for an associated capital reserve budget was discussed, as was the goal for a long-term capital improvement (facility plan) to be developed, with a prioritized list of projects.

Significant changes in budgeting of certain large expense amounts from one line item for past year expenses to new line items for the 2008 - 2009 budget was discussed. This was attributed to different accounting practices by previous staff in past years.

- - - -

Lots More Renovation or Building Projects May Be On The Way

2008-04-01T20:03:00.006-04:00

Some brief background: The School District of Cheltenham Township has an aging building plant. Glenside Elementary (1956), Wyncote Elementary (1948), Cheltenham Elementary (1953) and the Elkins Park School (1954) were all built over 50 years ago. The older schools have all faced a lack of maintenance and renovations over the years, and are now in need of major improvements or renovations. There is no building building improvement plan in the School District, though doing one has been talked about by the School Board for years and is apparently being worked on. There is also no capital budget, which would address the long-term costs and funding needs of implementing a building improvement plan.  

At a School Board of Cheltenham Township Facilities Committee meeting on March 25, 2008, the new Director of Support Services gave a presentation with pictures and led a discussion of major heating system problems facing Glenside Elementary, Cheltenham Elementary, Wyncote Elementary and the Elkins Park School, with a focus on Glenside Elementary; and gave a presentation with pictures and led a discussion on roofing issues facing Cedarbrook Middle School and Cheltenham High School.

  Problems in the heating system were mentioned by the School Board at an earlier meeting as being a key reason as to why the Myers Elementary school could not be used for another year before it was closed for renovations. The decision to close Myers in large part due to the heating system issue at the end of the school year in June 2006, before plans were sufficiently developed and approved for the renovation work, played a key role in Myers being closed for one year before renovation work started on the Myers' buildings during September 2007.   Earlier this year, the heating system failed in Glenside Elementary forcing the closure of the the school one day, and a need for constant maintenance and watching of the heating system there. The heating systems at Glenside Elementary, Wyncote Elementary, Cheltenham Elementary and the Elkins Park School are all original and are obsolete, inefficient, and in an extreme state of disrepair. Parts are not available to replace failed components. The heating in the building and from classroom to classroom and from day to day reportedly fluctuates widely, often resulting in rooms that are much too cold or too hot and which are not conducive to a good teaching or a good learning environment. A final heating system plan and schedule is being prepared, but it appears that the heating systems in the four schools will likely face the need for an emergency major repair job this summer just to get through the 2008 - 2009 school year, and will need a full replacement before the 2009 - 2010 school year. The cost of the repairs if done in house by the School District will total over $100,000 combined for the four schools not counting for the cost of labor. The cost of the replacement of the heating systems including new boilers, pipes and other components will likely cost well over $2 million per school.  

In terms of roofing, Glenside Elementary, Wyncote Elementary, Cheltenham Elementary all apparently have failing original roofs. Comments were made at the meeting that parts of the roof at Glenside Elementary have been leaking for nine years. The School District recently though they had nearly completed a roofing project for large parts of the roof at Cedarbrook Middle School at a cost of over $680,000, and a roofing project for the High School. The School District never got a building permit from the Township for the roofing work at the High School (thus the Township never inspected the work). Prior to about one or two weeks ago, the roofing work was also never inspected by the School District and it appears may not have been inspected by the firm overseeing the roofing design and planning for the project. When the new Director of Support Services inspected the roofs recently, he found the work to be not up to specifications or standards, to be incomplete, and that parts of the new roof used duct tape as a building material. The Director of Support Services' inspection followed significant leaks in one of the building during a storm. The firm that was in charge of designing the new roof and with overseeing the company doing the roof repair, was approved by the School Board during June 2007 to prepare roof replacement recommendations and specifications for Cheltenham High, Glenside Elementary, Wyncote Elementary and the Elkins Park School, at an estimated cost of $125,000.  

A key issue facing the School District is what to do in terms of planning, logistics and cost for the likely need to either do major systems replacements in up to five schools over the next several years or the need to do major renovations and rebuilding for some or most of these schools. This information is still new, and needs assessments and plans are being developed further by School District staff. I would hope that the Board looks to comprehensive planning; inclusion of teachers, parents and residents in the discussion of the projects; with a goal of changing a number of planning, communication and policy practices that were used for the work leading up to the Myers renovation work.

- - - -

2006 - 2007 School District Audit Posted

2008-03-25T18:47:00.003-04:00

The School District of Cheltenham Township School Board approved the 2206 - 2007 audit at their meeting on March 11, 2008. As noted in an article in the 3/19/08 issue of The Times Chronicle, the audit by

Maillie, Falconiero & Co. LLP points out the strengths and weaknesses of the School District, particularly with regard to business practices.

It is important to note that the audit reflects a period where business affairs were overseen by a previous Director of Business Affairs for the School District. The audit is available in a viewer friendly format and in a printer friendly format.
- - - -

Budget Update and Paying for Football Stadium Lights

2008-02-25T12:04:00.003-05:00

The road to the final 2008 - 2009 School District of Cheltenham Township budget has taken a few interesting turns recently, though a final budget is still in the relatively early development stage. In an interesting move, the School District decided to only seek one exception from the PA Department of Education for the 2008 - 2009 budget, for $508,654 for grandfathered (building) debt. Last year it sought and received a total of $3,629,340 in exceptions for school construction grandfathered debt, special education, health care benefits, and pension obligations. The exceptions are amounts of expenses that are above the index rate (4.4 percent for 2008 - 2009) of increases in real estate taxes.

Assuming the $508,654 exception request is approved, this means that the School District of Cheltenham Township will be able to raise real estate taxes by a total of 5.18 percent for 2008 - 2009, rather than the 8.76 percent increase in the approved preliminary budget. In addition to seeking to lessen the burden on taxpayers, another potential reason for not seeking exceptions for special education, health care benefits, and pension obligations may be related to the pending negotiations for a new teachers' contract, as the areas of special education, health care benefits, and pension obligations all have a connection with teacher salaries and benefits. Also, by seeking fewer exceptions the budget will need to be cut by $2,345,252 from the approved preliminary budget. It is unclear as to where these cuts will be made. However, PA law does not allow for cuts in teacher levels as a result of budgetary issues. Also the School District staff indicated that 85 - 90 percent of the budget is for mandated programs and contractual obligations, and that it would not look for cuts in these areas. A concern that I have is that I believe that there can be significant budget reductions made in some of the contractual obligation areas, without an impact to service, with a key area being transportation. As I have noted before, the School District of Cheltenham Township pays twice the per student cost of the Abington School District on transportation expenses, with the School District of Cheltenham Township currently paying the fourth highest per student transportation cost of the 501 Pennsylvania school districts. While there may be many reasons for the high cost, there is a strong potential that there are inefficiencies in scheduling, routing and number of buses, which if addressed could significantly reduce the cost of transportation.

The School District does have the option to have a voter referendum to ask for additional exceptions. The use of this tool is unlikely due to scheduling and political reasons. The voter referendum would need to occur during the April 2008 primary election and would need to be approved by the Board well before the election to allow for placement on the ballot (and the Board has shown no inclination to use the public referendum route. Also, as the budget is still being developed and the negotiations with the teachers' union will not be resolved before the election, the voter referendum is not a viable option.

In three different but related issues ( at least in my mind), the School District of Cheltenham Township has recently faced and discussed the following expense issues:

1. A real estate tax refund due to the owners of three properties for a total of $276,621, based upon lower reassessments.
2. The potential need for replacement of boilers at Cheltenham, Glenside and Wyncote Elementary Schools at a cost of around $125,000 per boiler. (More than one new boiler may be needed at each of the listed schools.)
3. Lighting the Cheltenham High School Football stadium at an estimated capital cost of $250,000 - $285,000.

The real estate tax refund for the three properties is happening, though it is unclear where the money is coming from to pay the refund. The boiler cost is unknown as the new Director of Support Services just started work last week and the issue needs to be reviewed. The football stadium lighting issue was discussed in detail at the 2/19/08 Facilities Committee meeting, and had been discussed at length at previous Facility Committee meetings. At the 2/19/08 Facilities Committee meeting, the Board approved putting together and releasing a request for proposals for bids to provide lights for the football stadium. There is a hope and goal of the District to raise all or much of the estimated $250,000 - $285,000 needed to pay for the project from donations. However, the District administration stated that there is approximately $250,000 in the budget in the supply and benefits account that could be transferred to the building and facilities capital fund to pay for the lights if the fundraising does not raise any or all of the funds needed to pay for the project. (The $250,000 in the budget in the supply and benefits account is a surplus due to the high number of vacancies in the administration staff during 2007 - 2008, as a number of positions were waiting to be filled.) The issue of lighting the football stadium has been discussed for years, and the High School is apparently the only local high school in the conference to not have lights. Many people believe strongly in the need for lights for reasons including student motivation and equity with other school districts. The key questions in this matter are why is the School District agreeing to pay up to $250,000 of their funding for the lights when there are other significant pre-existing and non-budgeted financial obligations, and there is a $2,345,252 cut needed in the 2008 - 2009 budget that the unspent $250,000 in the budget in the supply and benefits account could be used towards.

- - - -

Preliminary 2008-2009 Budget Available

2008-01-07T21:00:00.000-05:00

I have posted a copy of the 2008-2009 Preliminary Cheltenham School District budget at http://www.swingingsammy.com/schools/page9/page9.html. The preliminary budget calls for $91 million in spending, a $5.7 million increase or 6.6 percent increase, and a 8.75 percent real estate tax increase over the current year's budget. The budget process is complicated by PA Act 1, which requires District approval of a preliminary budget by the end of January 2008 at a special Board meeting on 1/22/08 at 8:00 p.m. This approval is needed well before federal and state revenue levels to the School District will be known. Act 1 caps total budget increases to an index, which is 4.4 percent for most school districts, including Cheltenham for 2008 - 2009. However, there are 10 exception areas that cover large parts of the budget that allow for the PA Department of Education or the voters to approve increases above the index rate. Last year, the PA Department of Education approved all of the exceptions that were requested by all of the school districts that requested them, including $3,629,340 for the Cheltenham Township School District for school construction grandfathered debt, special education, health care benefits, and pension obligations.
- - - -

2008 - 2009 School District Budget News

2007-12-18T22:56:00.000-05:00

As I speculated would likely happen in a posting on 9/20/07 available at http://tinyurl.com/24u5nd, at tonight's Cheltenham School Board Business Affairs Committee, it was noted that the District is on the road towards a likely budget increase for the 2008 - 2009 budget year of over 6 percent, and a likely real estate tax increase of over 8 percent. As of tonight's meeting, the preliminary budget that will be sent out to the Board at the end of this week calls for $91 million in spending, a $5.7 million increase or 6.6 percent increase, and a 8.76 percent real estate tax increase over the current year's budget. Other changes in District revenue, notably federal and PA are unknown at this time, though historically federal and state revenue have not kept pace with increased District expenses leading to an increasing burden and reliance on local revenue. The 2007 - 2008 approved budget had a 7.52 percent increase in expenses, and an 8.49 percent increase in real estate taxes.

The budget process is complicated by PA Act 1, which requires District approval of a preliminary budget by the end of January 2008. Act 1 also caps increases to an index, which is 4.4 percent for most school districts, including Cheltenham for 2008 - 2009. However, there are 10 exception areas that cover large parts of the budget that allow for the PA Department of Education or the voters to approve increases above the index rate. Last year, the PA Department of Education approved all of the exceptions that were requested by all of the school districts that requested them, including $3,629,340 for the Cheltenham Township School District for school construction grandfathered debt, special education, health care benefits, and pension obligations.

The draft preliminary budget will be made available to the public on 1/3/08 and is scheduled for Board approval on 1/22/08. The District is looking at non-mandated items and what potential savings could be achieved by not increasing them. The budget development and review process is further complicated by the fact that the new Director of Business Services has not yet started and a start date is still being determined. This will result in a delay in the possible implementation of a number of potential key budgeting improvement practices and analytical changes until after the 2008 - 2009 budget is set.
- - - -

Victory in Sending Out Architect and Engineering Contracts to Bid

2007-11-14T11:59:00.000-05:00

At 11/13/07, following a discussion, the Cheltenham School Board meeting, the Board surprisingly voted to not award Brinjac Engineering, Inc. a contract in an amount up to $76,052 to prepare specifications for the installation of security enhancements at Cheltenham High School, Elkins Park School and Cheltenham, Glenside and Wyncote elementaries as detailed in Brinjac's feasibility report. This followed an earlier Board vote at a previous Business Affairs Committee in favor of awarding Brinjac the contract. Brinjac had early done a feasibility report for security enhancements for the School District for the aforementioned schools. My concern is not with Brinjac, it is in following a good business practice and opening up architecture work to public bidding.

While security of our children and our faculty and staff is a major concern, the Board's decision to not award Brinjac a contract and to move towards putting the project out to bid was a wise decision. The key issues are the following:

Under PA law nearly all school district purchases of $10,000 or more need to go out for written bids (with a key exception being certain professional services, such as legal, architecture and engineering). This despite the fact that an architect's design and work can have a 30 year impact based on a standard life span of many public buildings. This being said, there is nothing to prevent a school district from putting architecture work out to bid as they need to do when they are purchasing say $10,000 worth of copy paper.

Not putting architecture services out to bid is a bad business practice that can result in limiting options, receiving inflated bids, and receiving a lower level of design and implementation, as could be argued happened with the Myers Elementary renovation and the decision of the School Board to hire one architecture firm without going out ti bid for the feasibility report and project design.

In response to two points raised during the Board discussion last night in favor of awarding the installation contract to Brinjac and not putting the project out to bid, I would suggest that many public work projects involving architects are put out to bid, and that while it is possible that there could be a security breach during a period resulting from a delay caused by bidding out the project, it is not prudent to rush a project through for that reason. Finally, everything else being equal, Brinjac should have an advantage if they submit a bid in that they should be the firm that is most familiar with the project and the schools.

- - - -

$10 Million Bond Issued for Myers Renovation

2007-09-26T14:24:00.000-04:00

On 9/11/07 a statement for a $10,000,000 School District of Cheltenham Township General Obligation Bonds, Series of 2007 was issued. A copy of the statement is available at www.swingingsammy.com/schools/2007CheltenhamTwpSDBond.pdf. The bond maturity dates and yields range from 2/15/2009 @ 3.550%, to 2/15/2035 @ 4.500%. The bond is rated by Moodys at Aaa. The purpose of the bond is "Proceeds of the Bonds will be applied towards: (1) designing, acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping additions, renovations and improvements to the Myers Elementary School and other facilities owned and operated by the School District, and (2) paying the costs and expenses related to the foregoing purposes and the issuance of the Bonds."

The bond statement offers several interesting details including:

Under debt service requirements, the cost of the bond including principal and interest payments is projected to be $19,063,084.
There was a growth in School District real estate taxes from $48,257,363 in 2003 to a projected amount of $64,793,460 for 2008, a projected increase of over 34 percent.
There was a growth in the overall School District budget from $65,025,588 in 2003 to a projected amount of $85,350,905 for 2008, a projected increase of over 31 percent.
There is an apparent misstatement on page 9 as follows:
"The School District’s preliminary budget for fiscal year 2007-08 does not require an increase to its tax rates by more then the Index. No exceptions will be needed in connection with the 2007-08 budget."
In fact, the School District's 2007-2008 preliminary and final budgets DID require an increase of its tax rates by more than the Index, and exceptions were needed in connection with the 2007-2008 budget. As noted by Taxpayer Relief Act Special Session Act 1 of 2006, Report on Referendum Exceptions, For School Year 2007-2008, the School District requested exceptions from the PA Department of Education and were granted $3,629,340 in exceptions as follows:
- School construction grandfathered debt $1,067,316.
- Special Education expenditures $1,522,844.
- Health care-related benefits $873,182.
- Pension obligations $165,998.
These exceptions did result in an increase to the School District's real estate tax rate by more than the Index rate to a rate of 8.49 percent from the Index rate of 3.4 percent.

There is a wealth of other information in the bond statement including the School District's Annual Financial Report for the year ending June 30, 2006.

- - - -

Look Ahead to 2008-2009 School District Budget

2007-09-20T12:14:00.000-04:00

Note that some people were provided a link that was somewhat incorrect. To get the current and full blog page including newer postings, please go to http://www.swingingsammy.com/schools/page1/page1.php.

Now that the school year has started, let's take a look ahead to next year's 2008-2009 Cheltenham School District Budget from the perspectives of state funding and Pennsylvania imposed limits on public school related local tax increases.

In terms of Pennsylvania funding, a key basis upon which the PA Department of Education calculates the amount of state funding assistance to school districts is through the use of three ratios as follows. More information on these ratios is available at www.pde.state.pa.us/k12_finances/lib/k12_finances/AR_Calc_Methodology.pdf.

Market Value Aid Ratio (MV AR). The Market Value (MV) is the value of taxable real estate as certified by the State Tax Equalization Board. The MV AR is a ratio that compares a school district's market value to that of the state's by dividing a weighted average daily membership (students) figure into a school district's market value, and the entire state's market value. A higher MV AR would indicate more state aid on a per student basis. For 2007-2008 the Cheltenham School District had the 454th lowest MV AR of the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania. For purposes of the MV AR calculation, the Cheltenham School District derives a benefit from the high amount of non-taxable real estate (i.e. properties comprised largely by non-profit ownership), as these properties are not figured into the calculation, resulting in a lower MV total and a higher MV AR number than if those properties had been included in the MV AR calculation. A lower MV AR indicates a higher amount of per capita market value on a weighted per student basis.

Personal Income Aid Ratio (PI AR). The Personal Income (PI): is the value of personal income, excluding out-of-state income, as reported on PA-40 income tax form. The PI AR is a ratio that compares a school district's personal income value to that of the state's by dividing a weighted average daily membership (students) figure into a school district's personal income value, and the entire state's personal income value. A higher PI AR would lead to more state aid on a per student basis. For 2007-2008 the Cheltenham School District had the 442nd lowest MV AR of the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania. A lower PI AR indicates a higher amount of per capita personal income on a weighted per student basis.

Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio (MV/PI AR). The Market Value/Personal Income Aid Ratio (MV/PI AR) reflects a combined weighted market value at (0.6) and a weighted personal income value at (0.4) for a school district. A higher MV/PI AR would lead to more state aid on a per student basis. For 2007-2008 the Cheltenham School District had the 464th lowest MV AR of the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania. A lower MV/PI AR indicates a higher amount of per capita market value/personal income on a weighted per student basis.

The amount of state funds for the Cheltenham School District will not be known for some time as Pennsylvania still needs to approve a budget for 2008-2009 and allocate funds to the various school districts.

Pennsylvania also calculates a base index for school district budget increases based on the MV/PI AR. As noted on http://www.pde.state.pa.us/proptax/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=111849 for 2008-2009 the figure is 4.4 percent for most school districts including the Cheltenham School District. The 4.4 percent figure is the amount property taxes or other school taxes can increase from the 2007-2008 budget except for 10 exception areas that allow for potentially greater increases above the 4.4 percent amount. The 10 exception areas in part include:

Debt on an existing school construction projects.
Special education costs that increase by more than the index.
Health care benefits that rise faster than the index in contracts in effect on January 1, 2006.
Increases in retirement payments that rise faster than the index.

More details on exceptions is available at http://www.pde.state.pa.us/proptax/lib/proptax/FAQ_Act1_Taxpayers_11-15-06.pdf . If property tax rates or other school taxes need to increase by more than 4.4 percent for the 2007-2008 budget (except as allowed in greater amounts per approved exceptions), a district referendum would need to be approved by voters.

What does all of this mean? It is likely that the Cheltenham School District taxes will increase by 4.4 percent for 2008-2009 plus an additional amount under any referendum exceptions approved by the PA Department of Education. For 2007-2008, 210 school districts out of 501 total state-wide sought and were given referendum exceptions by the PA Department of Education. This included $3,629,340 worth of referendum exceptions for the Cheltenham School District an amount equal to 1.9841 mills. The final adopted budget included a total 8.49 percent Cheltenham School District real estate tax increase comprised of the index rate for 3.4 percent, and the value of exceptions. The $3,629,340 in exceptions were for:

School Construction Grandfathered Debt $1,067,316
Special Education Expenditures $1,522,844
Health Care-Related Benefits $873,182
Pension Obligations $165,998.

Based on the 2007-2008 Cheltenham School District budget and the impact of the approved referendum exceptions, and the likelihood for the same or greater increases in budget areas that received received referendum exceptions during 2007-2008, in the 2008-2009 budget it would appear that the Cheltenham School District could have an increase of over 8 percent (4.4 percent in the state index rate, and potential exceptions), unless significant savings are identified in the budget for 2008-2009.

- - - -

Myers Groundbreaking Scheduled for 9/11/07

2007-09-06T18:21:00.000-04:00

On September 6, 2007, the School District of Cheltenham Township released a press release that stated:

"Myers Elementary School, the oldest continually-used school building in the School District of Cheltenham Township, is getting a much-needed renovation. A groundbreaking will be held on Tuesday, September 11th at 11:00 A.M. on the Myers' Play Yard on Mill Road. This event marks the start of the renovation process, a process that will lead to a new energy efficient school that provides an ideal learning environment for all children. Representatives from the school district, township, community, and the architect and building firms that are working on the project will take part in the celebration.

Myers Elementary School is located at 7609 Montgomery Avenue, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania."

- - - -

PA Sunshine Act: Minutes of Committee Meetings Not Being Kept

2007-08-17T12:03:00.000-04:00

By not producing written minutes of open Committee meetings, the Cheltenham School District has apparently been violating Section 706 of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, which requires that written minutes be kept for all open meetings. The non keeping of written minutes of Committee meetings has been going on for a period that might date back to the passage of the Sunshine Act in 1986.

In response to a reading into the record of Section 706 of the Act and a listing of specific concerns raised by the author at the 8/14/07 Cheltenham School District District Board meeting about the apparent violations of Section 706 of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, the Board and Solicitor wrongly stated that the Committee meetings were not open meetings under the Sunshine Act. Clarification on 9/11/07. On 9/1/07, the Solicitor for the School District stated in part that he did not make the remarks attributed to him here at the 8/14/07 meeting or at any other time. The author of this post states that any misrepresentation or misrecollection of the Solicitor's remarks at the 8/14/07 meeting was not intentional, and understands that the Solicitor never stated that Committee meetings are not open to the public. It was the intention of the author of this post to state he understood the Solicitor to convey the message at the 8/14/07 meeting that for purposes of needing written minutes under the PA Sunshine Act, the meetings were not open in the sense that as the author believes that if a meeting is open per the PA Sunshine Act, written minutes of the meeting are required, and that all School Board meetings where a quorum are present need to by definition and requirement of the PA Sunshine Act to be either open meetings or executive sessions. The author of this post again apologizes for any misunderstanding in this matter. The Solicitor never gave an opinion to the Board that Committee meetings are not open to the public and are not subject to the Sunshine Act. Potash stated that Committee meetings are open and that no action is taken. He stated that Committee meetings are open and that records must be kept.

A number of sources indicate that this belief that the Committee meetings are not open meetings or the belief that for some other reason open meeting written minutes do need to be kept are wrong. Among the sources refuting these beliefs are the Pennsylvania Governor's Center for Local Government Services, which on page 12 of Open Meetings/Open Records The Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Law (Sixth Edition, January 2007) states:
"The Sunshine Act also requires written minutes be kept of all public meetings. This require ment extends to all committees of municipal governing bodies that qualify as agencies under the Act. The minutes must include the following.

The date, time, and place of the meeting.
The names of members present.
The substance of all official actions and a record of roll call votes.
The names of all citizens who appeared officially at the meeting and the subject of their testimony."

The Sunshine Act itself states in Section 706:
"Written minutes shall be kept of all open meetings of agencies."
The Sunshine Act in the definition section for "Agency" includes school board.

A meeting is defined in the Sunshine Act as:
"Any prearranged gathering of an agency which is attended or participated in by a quorum of the members of an agency held for the purpose of deliberating agency business or taking official action."
Why is it important for the School Board of the School District of Cheltenham Township to keep written minutes of Committee meetings?:

It is required under the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.
Not keeping minutes is a bad organzational practice that leads to a lack of Board and District history and a lack of accountability.
Not keeping minutes makes the process of governing the School District more secretive and makes it overly difficult for citizen engagement and involvement.

What can you do? Contact the Cheltenham School District or attend a School District Board meeting and request that they follow the open meeting written meeting minutes requirement of the PA Sunshine Act.

- - - - -

Lynnewood Gardens Sold For $135 Million

2007-08-01T23:53:00.000-04:00

According to an article on Globest.com earlier today, Lynnewood Gardens has been sold for $135 million to an unidentified New York City-based real estate partnership. The sale should generate $675,000 in real estate transfer tax revenue for the School District of Cheltenham Township.

As an update on 8/8/07, it appears that the property may technically not have been sold as according to this article in the Times Chronicle, which states that the property was not technically sold but was a "transfer of management". This may have been done in part to avoid having to pay the real estate transfer tax as per Section 1102-C.3(11) of the Realty Transfer Tax Act, 72 P.S. §8102-C.3(11), which provides that the realty transfer tax shall not be imposed on a transfer in certain cases.

- - - - -

Enrichment for All Students

2007-07-25T12:57:00.000-04:00

On 7/24/07, there was a School District of Cheltenham Township School Board Educational Affairs Committee Meeting to discuss several issues including a proposed "Enrichment for All Students" program for math for the third and fourth grades proposed to start during September 2007. The goals of Enrichment for All Students are admirable and I want to thank the staff who worked on this proposal.

In terms of background, enriched math provides a higher level of math training and education. Enrichment for All Students would change the current policy where there is one enriched math class for third grade and one enriched math class for fourth grade at each of the four elementary schools and two to three non-enriched math classes at each elementary school. Student selection for the current enriched math program is currently based on testing and student evaluation. The current enriched math program has selected students (that score high on a placement test and on evaluations) leaving the classroom at certain points during the school week for a specialized enriched math class in a different classroom. The broad goal of the proposed Enrichment for All Students program appeared to be to provide the enrichment program for all students regardless of their skill or testing levels. This was largely predicated upon the lack of available enriched math slots in the current system and the number of students who would be eligible if more slots were available. Under the proposed new program, students would not leave their classrooms, but rather the one enriched math specialist teacher at each of the elementary schools would go into the existing classes and work with all of the students, with some supplemental material available for high performing students. At the end of the meeting the Board effectively tabled the concept of Enrichment for All Students.

I would estimate that over 50 parents attended the meeting and that over 25 parents spoke. The parents' positions and concerns generally fell into four broad areas:

The current enriched math program works and does not need to be fixed and fixing it will result in lessening enriched math for students who would currently be eligible for the existing enriched math program. If you want to have more enriched math opportunities why not have more enriched math classes using the current structure of separate classes?

More or all students should benefit from enriched math and there are currently students who either just miss testing into enriched math by missing one or two questions on the placement test or who do not get into enriched math based on their background or due to a lack of available spaces.

The new proposed Enrichment for All Students was not well thought out especially in terms of logistics (e.g. scheduling) and teacher training as it would need to be implemented in approximately six weeks from the meeting date if it was going to start during September 2007.

There was not enough explanation of the current enriched math system and too much technical language in the presentation and discussion. This made it difficult for people either not involved in education or not well versed with the enrichment program to understand many of the issues involved in the proposal.

The staff that oversees math in the elementary school level advocated for the new program during their presentation and in response to questions. In addition to the concerns above, this author has the following concerns about the proposed Enrichment for All Students program and the meeting:

Based on comments made at the meeting, the meeting was the first time the School Board had been informed of this idea or concept. When I raised the issue of why had this not been discussed earlier or the Board why had the Board not at least been informed about the issue before last night's meeting, I was informed that doing so would violate the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. While I realize and support the need to follow the letter and spirit of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, which governs how public meetings are held, there needs to be better communication within the confines of the Sunshine Act. Board members apparently are often times blindsided at Committee meetings by new issues with no advanced notice as to what the issues to be discussed really are. Also, I am troubled by the fact that the idea was not raised at an earlier School District public meeting as a concept for Board and public discussion prior to a large amount of work being done to advance the idea of the Enrichment for All Students. I believe this could have rightfully been done under the Sunshine Act. Furthermore, I believe that providing the Board with a detailed agenda before a meeting would not be in violation of the Sunshine Act. The agenda item for the Enrichment for All Students program for last night's meeting stated "Math in Grades 3 and 4." In terms of notifying and informing the Board and the public for that matter, would both not have been better served by an agenda item that stated what the issue was, being "Enrichment for Math: All Students in Grades 3 and 4", with perhaps a brief paragraph stating the need for and goals and summary of the proposed program? On a positive note the agenda was posted on the District's web site prior to last night's meeting.

The staff presenting the Enrichment for All Students defended and justified their position based on partial test results from one year of the new "everyday" math program and how successful it had been. While I am pleased that the everyday math program has been successful, one year of isolated partial data is not a reasonable or good method of data analysis upon which to base a decision. Multiple years of data and a reasoned level of data analysis is needed to reliably build a good understanding of the data.

When describing the current enriched math program, the staff used several pejorative or negative terms, one of which was that "artificially" in terms of the students being selected for the current enriched math classes being artificially selected. I would argue that the current enriched math class student selection either is or should be based on a well defined evaluation system and that short of a Darwinian survival of the fitest type of system, any academic evaluation system is artificial by its inherent nature.

The Board had a position that it did not need to vote on the proposal as it was not a budgetary matter. The reality is that no one knows if it would be a budgetary matter as the logistics of the teaching of the classes under the proposed Enrichment for All Students had clearly not been developed. Also, the School Board Committees often times votes on items and these votes serve as the basis for future School Board votes, which very rarely deviate from the results of the votes of a Committee. As education is the key element of the School District should not the Board's Educational Affairs Committee vote on key program or policy changes; at least in an advisory sense if not in a direct oversight sense?

- - - - -

We Are Number 1 (in Real Estate Tax Rate)

2007-07-19T16:34:00.000-04:00

According to information recently posted by the Montgomery County, PA Board of Assessment, the Cheltenham School District has the highest millage (real estate Tax Rate) in Montgomery County, PA for 2007-2008. There are a lot of reasons for this including:

One of the highest amount --in terms of percentage of overall value-- of land owned by nonprofits of any school district in Pennsylvania (properties owned by non-profit owners are exempt from paying real estate taxes); and

A small commercial and industrial tax base. A large commercial and industrial tax bases is a win for school districts as commercial and industrial properties provide net revenue to school districts; and

A fairly low per capita housing value in comparison to most other school districts in Montgomery County, PA; and

High costs being in the Philadelphia region as opposed to other more rural parts of the state where costs overall tend to be lower.

However, a key issue is the high expenses for the Cheltenham School District and a lack of fiscal analysis. Controlling expenses does not have to mean lowering the quality of education. Rather, good financial oversight and budget analysis can result in lower increases in spending while improving education.

- - - - -

Fund Balance and Debt Chart Service Charts Added to Site

2007-07-12T15:06:00.000-04:00

A Fund Balance Chart 1996/1997 - 2004/2005 and a Debt Service Chart for 1996/1997 - 2004/2005 for the Cheltenham School District have been added to the Charts page. Look for them as the second and third charts from the top of the page. There is also an explanation with the charts.

- - - - -

Real Estate Tax Calculator Added to Site

2007-07-09T09:45:00.000-04:00

An online real estate tax calculator has been added to the Budget/Taxes page. The calculator automatically computes your real estate taxes on a property located in the Cheltenham School District.

- - - - -

2001/2002 - 2005/2006 School District Expense Charts Posted

2007-06-20T00:31:00.000-04:00

19 easy to read charts showing the expense amounts by expense area for the Cheltenham School District for the period between 2001/2002 - 2005/2006, and the District's ranking from the 501 Pennsylvania school districts for those expense areas have been posted and can be accessed at Charts. The charts include data from school year 2005/2006 that recently became available.

- - - - -

Myers Act 34 Hearing and Budget Adoption on 6/12/07

2007-05-31T11:33:00.000-04:00

Even though it has yet to make the School District of Cheltenham Township's School District's web site as of the date of this posting, there will be a second Act 34 hearing for the Myers Elementary renovation on 6/12/07, I believe as part of the Board meeting at 7:45 p.m. at the District's Administration building. This required Act 34 hearing will be one of the last key steps before the project will likely be approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. If you have any questions, concerns or issues with the Myers renovation project, you might want to attend this meeting. At the 6/12/07 Board meeting, the 2007- 2008 budget will also be adopted. The School District proposed budget for 2007 - 2008 adopted May 8, 2007, has a 7.52 percent increase in expenses, and an 8.49 percent increase in real estate taxes.

- - - - -

News From Myers Renovation School District Meeting on 5/29/07

2007-05-30T14:46:00.000-04:00

The School District of Cheltenham Township held a meeting on the Myers Elementary Renovation on 5/29/07, the focus of which was to review the bids and the alternates (additional components of the bids). Dwight Knouse, AIA of Hayes Large, the architecture firm for the renovation project was the main speaker. After a brief statement by the School District, the meeting started with a lengthy review of the bids focused on the alternates. The four bid areas were general, electrical, HVAC, and plumbing. The alternates were components that could be added to or deducted from the project to spend or save more money. An example of an alternate is bathrooms in the multi-purpose room lobby. Each alternate had a price associated with it from each bid that included services in that area.

During January 2006, the project was budgeted for approximately $13,500,000. The bids all came in over budget at a lowest total base bid cost of approximately $18,469,000. However, due to complexities of PA Act 34, which is the state law that governs school construction, the Act 34 construction part of the project is below budget and it appears that the project will move forward. For purposes of Act 34, construction includes some areas of renovation, but not all, and does not include most areas outside of the physical buildings, such as new parking lots. Several alternates were tentatively selected and a large number were tentatively not selected. Among those selected were to build a new parking area, and the outdoor amphitheater. Among those not selected were the stage lighting, the multi-purpose room lobby bathrooms, and a cafeteria public address system. The allowed amount of construction under Act 34 is $6,407,112. The estimated budget of construction under Act 34 is $6,043,961. The Act 34 increase on July 1 (new fiscal year) will likely result in an Act 34 cap of approximately $7,021,112. As long as the District keeps the Act 34 construction part of the project below whatever the final Act 34 cap is, the project will likely proceed forward. If at any point the project goes 3 percent over the Act 34 cap or $300,000 over the Act 34 cap (whichever is lower), the project will need to stop and a public referendum will need to be held.

It appears that the total project will cost over $19,000,000, which does not include the cost of architects, consultants, legal fees or Modular Myers. The next major steps before the project can go forward with a construction start date estimated for September 2007 include:

1. Having the Board officially select winning bidders.

2. Holding a second Act 34 hearing on June 12, 2007 about the project due to the increase in Act 34 costs from the first Act 34 hearing on January 10, 2006 to the higher Act 34 related bid costs.

3. Getting PLANCON G approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (PLANCON G basically places the winning bid costs into a detailed state form.)

4. Having the District contracting with the winning bidders.

There were a series of questions asked and comments made by citizens in the audience. The paraphrased questions and comments, and the paraphrased answers from the Board, staff and consultants included:

Q1. Could a new school be built or have been built on the Myers site?
A1. No. Not practical.

Q2. Could a new school be built and/or Modular Myers be moved elsewhere in the District?
A2. No. Not viable.

Q3. We are not happy with Modular Myers.
A3. No significant response.

Q4. Parking around Myers is a problem.
A4. We concur and indications are that we will approve the spending of over $600,000 to create 24 new parking spaces, (with other aspects of the project factored in, we will have a net gain of 12 new spaces.)

Q5. Why was the process so poorly done and so poorly managed?
A5. No significant response.

Q6. There is a need to do the project well, and not do a bare bones project.
A6. We agree and we will try to add in some other aspects of the project after it is done, (such as having a sound system for the cafeteria.) We will not be compromising safety.

Q7. Where is the money coming from, especially the amount of the costs over $13.5 million?
A7. We have a series of bonds that we have sold and are authorized to sell that will pay for the additional costs.

Q8. Can you post the public bid documents and other project information on the District's web site.
A8. Some hesitation and final agreement to post this information to the District's web site.

- - - - -

Myers Bid Opening Results on 5/22/07

2007-05-22T18:43:00.000-04:00

The bids for the Myers Elementary renovation project were opened today at the School District of Cheltenham Township Administration Building. The project was budgeted at $13,500,000 and is limited by Pennsylvania Act 34, which in part governs spending on school building and renovation projects. I believe the budgeted cap goes up to around $15 million on or after July 1st as it is a new fiscal year. For all the numbers go to http://www.editgrid.com/user/dlcohen1/Myersbids052207D.html For the numbers in a spreadsheet go to http://www.editgrid.com/user/dlcohen1/Myersbids052207D.xls.

The highlights are as follows:

General Contractors (Estimated Budget $8,400,000). 3 bids. Bid Details
HVAC Contractors (Estimated Budget $2,200,000). 8 bids. Bid Details
Plumbing Contractors (Estimated Budget $1,000,000). 3 bids. Bid Details
Electrical Contractors (Estimated Budget $1,900,000). 7 bids. Bid Details

The total low base bids were:

General Contractors $11,972,000
HVAC Contractors $2,890,000
Plumbing Contractors $1,012,000
Electrical Contractors $2,595,000
TOTAL $18,469,000

General Contractors $11,972,000
HVAC Contractors $2,890,000
Plumbing Contractors $1,012,000
Electrical Contractors $2,595,000

Low Base Bid Minus Deducts Plus Alternates Totals $21,020,425.
Low Base Bids Minus Deducts $21,253,625.
(Situation of low base bids minus deducts exceeding low base bid minus deducts plus alternates is due to some bids adding costs for deducts.

- - - - -

Myers Renovation School District Meeting on 5/29/07.

2007-05-17T21:55:00.000-04:00

School Board Special Information Meeting on Myers Renovation. Room 119 School District Administration Building at 7:30 p.m. on 5/29/07.

- - - - -

Myers Renovation Bid Opening on 5/22/07.

2007-05-17T21:54:00.000-04:00

From the School District of Cheltenham web site. NOTICE: The Myers Renovation and Alterations Bid opening has been rescheduled to 2:00 PM on May 22, 2007. There are other area construction bids due on the previously scheduled bid opening date of May 15, 2007 and to minimize the impact of competing for bidders and maximize our opportunity to receive the best possible bid response we were advised by the Construction Manager and the Architects to extend the opening one week. The schedule allowed for a potential bid extension and as such, this extension will not impact the overall project time line.

- - - - -