Candidate's Night

[Mike Berk]

Hello Folks -

I was getting tired of seeing nothing on this message board, so I thought I would post something.

It was great to see so many folks at Candidate's Night and the Boiling Springs Civic Association deserves kudos for sponsoring the event. The dialogue was excellent.

As a school board candidate, I was pleased to see that those in attendance last night were not being fooled by the shell game the state is playing with our children's future. As I said last night, when is the state going to take public education funding seriously? The continuing decrease in funding by the state coupled with the mandates they place on us just continues to hurt taxpayers (and will eventually hurt our children).

The Governor and the legislature need to step up and make educating our children a priority. Funding sports arenas or bailing out mass transit in Philly and Pittsburgh should not be the state's responsibility.

Mike

[Tom Benjey]

On behalf of the Boiling Springs Civic Association I would like to thank all the candidates who participated. Meeting and hearing the candidates was informative to BSCA members and to the public at large. I would also like to thank Bill Hoover for taping the event and posting the video on BSvillager. The Sentinel sent a reporter and photographer so we might see an article published in the future.

[Chad]

Below is a letter I emailed to the School Board but I thouhgt I would comment on it here to prompt some feedback from everyone else.
-------------------------------------------------------------


School Board Directors:

I attended the recent BSCA meeting where propsective school board directors were invited to attend for a Q&A session. I had asked a quesion about where each of the prospective candidates currently stands on Act 72. While none of the candidates indicated that they had yet taken a strong position on this issue, Mr. Winters did give some insights as to his current thinking on this act.

One comment that Mr. Winters made was that the tax assessment office had recieved and approved a large number of the homestead/farmstead exclusion forms and that he equates this to a lot of public support for Act 72.

What I wanted to point out is that many South Middleton residents like myself may have applied for the homestead exclusion without being in support of Act 72 and I'll explain why. From what I can recall, the mailings that accompanied the exclusion forms explained that the tax relief would occur in the following manner: If enacted by the local school district, Act 72 includes both an increase and a reduction in the taxes payed by working homeowners. Taxes are increased on earned income by at least 0.1 percent. For those who applied for and were approved for the homestead exclusion, they would qualify for tax relief in the form of reduced property taxes (once the gambling revenues start to roll in). As such, even if a homeowner is strongly opposed to Act 72, he/she would be wise to apply for the exclusion because if they neglect to do so and the School Board subsequently approves Act 72, those who didn't apply would still get to pay the increased earned income tax and would be left out of any potential property tax relief.

In making this point, I am not speaking hypothetically because based on what I have read on Act 72, I am personally opposed to it. Furthermore, I did apply for the homestead exclusion and was approved. As such if the school board does approve Act 72, at least there is a potential that some portion of the higher EIT could be offset via a reduction in my property tax. Now, whether we ever get to the promised land of gambling revenues to reduce our property taxes is an entirely different matter which I will not go into (at least for the moment).

Most sincerely,
Chad Clancy
Boiling Springs

[Tom Benjey]

Ditto. The way it was presented in the letter one would be foolish not to apply regardless of how he feels about state-sponsored gambling, something I oppose.

[Eileen]

Ditto. . .ditto. If we didn't apply for the homestead exemption, I could lose twice. Once by having the taxes on my pay and once because I didn't submit my application for tax reduction on our home.

Also, I have gone through the Act 72 presentation on the district's web site with a fine-toothed comb and don't like what I see at all. My guess is that the state won't make enough money from casino gambling to ever be able to implement any tax reduction but aside from that, the numbers provided by the school district are based on an absolutely "best case" scenaro. For example, there is no way the district EVER had or will have 100% payment of the earned income tax. Additionally, the state will determine how the funds are split (if there are any). When the state makes the determination, South Middleton always loses to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

There are other drawbacks for the school district to backing Act 72 as well. If, in fact, none of the candidates have a strong feeling one way or the other, I can't imagine why. It seems like a "no-brainer" to me.

Eileen

[Chad]

Isn't it ironic that if Act 72 is enacted by the school district that the tax increase (via the increased EIT) is a sure thing (and is immediate) but the benefit, in the form of a real estate tax refund, is an unknown and is at least a few years down the road?

So, Gov. Rendell is asking us to take a gamble and assume that Pennsylvanians and tourists from the surrounding areas will flock to the new Pennsylvania casinos to play (and loose money) on the slots. Some of these revenues will then be redistributed among the home and farm owners in a manner deemed fair by Rendell.

I think back to the last ballot question that appeared on a ballot a few years ago. I believe it had to do with whether or not municipalities should be able to fund the need for increased capacity in wastewater treatment by using bonds up to a certain amount if a justifyable need exists. So, we get to vote on mundane, common sense things that by their very nature seem to be related to the intended function of government. However, when it comes to bringing gambling to our state and counting on the revenue from this activity to fund a crucial thing like education, we little people have no say whatsoever. What's up with that?

It could very well be that the next guy who gets into the governor's seat chucks this entire gambling thing out the window. Then the schools that enacted Act 72 will have to deal with cleaning up the mess that was created.

Sorry about the rant - I had to get that off my chest.

[Eileen]

Chad,

I talked to a school board member about the timing of tax increases under Act 72, and was told that, if the board votes to adopt Act 72, the increase in the EIT does not take effect until the State gathers its $500 million slush fund. Nonetheless, my concern is that things will happen as follows:

1. The board will adopt Act 72, thus triggering an automatic EIT increase (effective when the State gets its funding together). Then. . .
2. The State will get its funding together but decided that South Middleton doesn't get any (like Title I and a lot of other funding). Then. . .
3. To compensate, the EIT will skyrocket far more than can possibly be offset by the reduced tax on property.

Hold onto your checkbook. This doesn't look good.

Eileen

[Mike Berk]

Eileen -

For the record, and I said this on Candidate's Night, if I was on the Board, I would vote "No" on Act 72. This is nothing but a shell game that provides us with no new money and the potential is there that the pot of gold known as gambling revenues will never come to fruition. For a change, I would like to see the state carry its weight with regards to funding for school districts. Give us our 50% or release us from the mandates.

Mike

[Eileen]

Mike,

I'm sure you know from your previous experience on the school board just how hard unfunded mandates hit this district. Look at the list. . .Title I, No Child Left Behind, on and on. Now, it's Act 72. Additionally, the deck is stacked against school boards in nearly every area of the code.

The state holds all the cards, though. They hold the pittance of state funding over our heads as the big stick and withhold subsidy much more quickly than they return it.

I'd like to see the school boards in central PA join with those in western PA (who have been in the fight for years) to "just say No" to this nonsense. We cannot continue to fund our children's education while paying for the schools in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Erie.

I'm pleased that you're opposed to Act 72 and hope that you'll be willing to take the hard position on some other issues. I tried when I was on the board but got little to no support.

Good luck,
Eileen

[Ron]

I am glad to see folks speaking up about Act 72 and all of the pitfalls associated with it. I too applied for the homestead tax exemption but not as a vote in favor of the act as it has been passed. Too many mirrors and alot of smoke. As Eileen has said - too many mandates and no funding (these things always seem to have money for the first two years and then...poof!! the money disappears but the mandate stays!) The only thing we'd be sure of as Chad said - the EIT will go up!

We must keep our eye on Harrisburg concerning any legislation that will force school districts to adopt Act 72 involuntarily since it's obvious that the legislators are frustrated since everyone didn't jump on the bandwagon like they thought they would! Did they think we couldn't review this mess they created and know that it isn't good for the school districts - especially districts like South Middleton who keep loosing funding to Pittsburgh and Phildelphia?

[Chad]

Ron is entirely correct about keeping an eye on what goes on in Harrisburg.

This could turn out to be an "opt-in or get shoved-in" deal for the SMSD if the legislators get their way. If that happens, we might as well not even have a local school board becuse it will be clear that we have very little control over decisions that are made that affect our district.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the unchecked power that has been given to the gaming control board. This highly compensated board has the power to override local zoning ordinances when choosing locations for casinos. This isn't directly related to Act 72 but it is all part of the Govenor's plan to bring casino gambling to PA and I think that he is trying to tie the revenues to education such that it will be very difficult to reverse this plan. What, you want to stop legalized gambling in Pennsylvania? It's for the children, for god's sake. Now that the legislators see that the districts aren't accepting Act 72 with open arms, they're having to consider other means to make the districts dependent on gambling revenues - i.e, forcing the disticts to enact Act 72 rather than making it optional.

I keep coming back to the question of when the people of Pennsylvania were ever asked if they want state-run legalized gambling?

[George Stapleton]

I also want to express my sincere thanks to the folks at the Boiling Springs Civic Association. I appreciated the chance to speak and the opportunity to meet all the candidates.