The Mountain View School District (MVSD) Board of Education (Board) adopted a preliminary 2016-2017 budget on Monday, May 23, 2016.  This budget has a 3.9% tax increase which was above the 2.9% Pennsylvania State Index maximum local school taxes can be raised without prior PA Department of Education approval or a voter referendum.  In prior years the tax increases had been at or below the state index.  Anyone desiring to review the adopted preliminary budget for 2016-2017 can do so by stopping at the school district business office.

Questions pertaining to the budget were addressed to the Board at the beginning of the May 23rd meeting. These remained unanswered until the end of the meeting, just prior to adjournment. A budget presentation was not made prior to the Board’s unanimous vote to adopt.

The Board had adopted a Preliminary Budget in the amount of $22,082,955.81 at the January 25, 2016 public meeting. The intent of that action was to raise taxes above the state index; this intent has now been accomplished. This writer held the position at the January meeting that he was opposed to raising taxes above the Pennsylvania State Index. He also proposed that the Board should make cuts in expenditures so that future budgets can be balanced.

The school district budget increased by over $4,000,000 from the 2013-2014 fiscal year to the current 2016-2017 fiscal year.  MVSD General Fund Budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year totaling $17,825,013.00 was based on 35.8608 mills real estate tax.  General Fund Budget for the 2014-2015 fiscal year was $20,192,243 based on 36.8290 mills real estate tax. The budget for 2015-2016 was at $20,910,477 based on 37.7128 mills real estate tax.  Tentatively adopted for the 2016-2017 fiscal year on May 23rd was a budget of $21,031,250 based on 39.2112 mills real estate tax. Increased spending was funded by an initially high gas royalty income and then by using up savings.

Basically, the school district is utilizing its saving to balance the budget. The 2014-2015 Annual Financial Report had shown expenditures at $494,000 above income for the year. Estimated at Monday night’s School Board meeting was that expenditures for the 2015-2016 fiscal year would be $2,288,000 above income. The Board also estimated that expenditures for the 2016-2017 fiscal year would be $2,880,000 above income. A balanced budget is one that has expenditures equal to actual income without the use of savings or designated reserve funds. Once the savings are gone the school district will be in financial difficulty.

At the same time the district savings are also declining at a rapid pace. The fund balance on June 30, 2014 was $6,105,243 due to planning of balanced budgets with provisions for savings. This dropped to $5,677,308 on June 30, 2015. Projected on Monday night was a further decline to $2,900,000 on June 30, 2016.   A further projection was made in the tentative budget estimating that on June 30, 2017 there would only be $975,000 left in general fund savings.

If the current trend of expenditures greatly exceeding income continues the school district will be unable to balance the budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year without a major decrease in expenditures, a major increase in the millage rate (local taxes), or a major increase in income from the state. Savings, which were accumulated over a number of years by expenditures not exceeding income, will be gone over a three year time period.

All of this is occurring while district enrollment is declining. Enrollment dropped from a high of 1,700 students to less than 1,000 students.

One of the recent concerns was speculated by this writer at the January 25, 2016 Board meeting to be the incorporation of the gas royalty income into the general fund budget. Expenditures increased as a result of the school district increasing staff by returning many of the furloughed positions and by adding new positions. As projected by the gas companies charts and graphs, the royalty income decreased each year to the present lowered level. Expenditures, which are now a part of the annual costs, needed to be covered by local tax increases or by utilizing savings to balance the budget. Administration did state at the public meeting Monday night that as vacancies occur they will not be filled; this will not provide sufficient expenditure reductions to circumvent projected local tax increases.

Settlement of the teacher contract over the past three years was an additional factor in the 2015-2016 expenditures. Three years of back salaries paid to teachers and additional annual contracted salary increases were not sufficiently projected for the current 2015-2016 year’s budget expenditures. Now that these expenditures and salary increases are in place, they must be paid for in the 2016-2017 budget and future budgets at the increased contracted level.

It has been voiced over the years and recently at the public Board meeting that prior Board’s should have increased taxes a little more each year. When taxes are increased more than needed to balance the budget it then increases the size of the budgets over the years resulting in an even greater expenditure above income than currently exists.  Prior Boards did manage the district well; if they did not there would not have been over $6,000,000 in savings which were accumulated and designated for the teacher retirement incentive, the increase in school pension cost, and the increase in health insurance cost.  Use of these funds to balance the budget leaves the designated areas unfunded and a future financial liability.

This writer attended the public Board meeting on January 25, 2016 and projected that the expenditures above income for 2015-2016 would be in excess of $1,600,000. As noted above the expenditures above income are now estimated by the school district at $2,800,000. In January the emphasis was to decrease expenditures in order to avoid future budgetary concerns. In reality, the district may be unable to fund its committed expenditures for 2017-2018. It is projected by this writer that a tax increase referendum will be needed for the 2017-2018 fiscal year to provide an additional $1,500,000 in income in addition to using the rest of the savings unless a major decrease in expenditures is put into place.

What does a mill in taxes bring in? Local real estate tax income per mill at a 100% collection rate is $196,142.  If the $1,500,000 additional income for the 2017-2018 fiscal year proves to be correct the district will need to add approximately 7.6475 mills in local taxes. It is noted that the district calculates the real estate tax income at a 93% collection rate, not the 100% rate. At the 93% collection rate the millage rate will be higher than the 7.6475 mills or approximately 8.2231 mills for 2017-2018 budget purposes.

A budget is a plan for the future. A member of the Board asked, on Monday night “Do we have enough money for the 2016-2017 year?” The obvious answer is “Yes, we have enough money for the next year, but our current level of plowing through our savings cannot hold in future years”. One must look beyond the upcoming year and plan ahead. The sooner the district gets a balanced budget, where money going out equals money coming in, the better. The best long term goal for the students and the district is a balanced budget where spending balances actual income.

The Board will be voting on the final budget on Monday, June 27, 2016 with the meeting starting at 7:00 P.M. at the MVSD Elementary School.  If you are concerned with this year’s nearly 4.0% tax increase and this writer’s projected major increase for 2017-2018 then attend the meeting to voice your opinion.

Sincerely,

Andrew Chichura

Lenox Township

There's no denying it; The Donald has an uncanny knack for bestowing biting nicknames.

Everyone knows, except recently arrived illegal aliens, that Low Energy is the label pinned on Jeb Bush. It will haunt the GOP candidate along with the $160 million spent on a campaign that failed to rescue him from single-digit poll numbers.

Remember Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio? They were tagged with Lyin' Ted and Little Marco. The diminutives will dog them for years.

Say the word, “crooked,” and what immediately comes to mind? Why Crooked Hillary of course; it's a moniker documented in a new best-seller book and the forthcoming film both titled, Clinton Cash.

It seems that $1 billion has gone missing from the Clinton Charity Foundation. No surprise. For the Clinton's, charity begins at home and ends there, too.

It's one of the dozens of Clinton hustles like honoraria of hundreds of thousands for one-hour speeches in quid pro quo arrangements with foreign governments. The cash is paid to Hillary and Bill via their Foundation. The nation's potential first First Gentleman is equally adept at weaseling shady bucks.

All this is assuming it matters. The FBI's investigation of Hillary's indifferent handling of classified material in a private server may make all of this moot. What happens if Hillary is forced to trade in her stylish burka for an orange jumpsuit?

Enter Bernie Sanders, the democrat's indefatigable gadfly shadowing Hillary; what is he dubbed? He's Loony Bernie the socialist/communist listed first on Hillary's drop-dead roster.

New on The Don's neo de plume gallery is Elizabeth Warren, a rising star on the far-flung left. It seems that Warren was trying to diversify herself by claiming that she is an American Indian. She cited her high cheekbones as proof. It failed. Pity Elizabeth, it's not easy being an Indian trapped in a Caucasian body.

The Donald calls her Pocahontas to honor her fizzled trans-racial makeover. The “Indian Princess” responded by calling The Donald a “money grubber.” Perhaps a failed businessman would be more to the liking of her Royal Highness.

The billionaire entrepreneur is sure to provoke a few chuckles among Republicans, but the Dems aren't cracking a smile. The sobriquets point to a serious flaw in the DNC; it's a fractured fraternity of Rt. 66 tourist traps who lack the gravitas of a candidate winning the national election.

And The Don?

Every morning he straps on his bullet-resistant vest. But over this is a protective coating of Teflon. It deflects criticisms of his brashness, blustery, braggadocio, and barbs about his narcissism, inflated ego, and self-aggrandizement. None of it seems to stick.

Which means...

Discounting The Don's considerable abilities and accomplishments, he may win the coveted address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by default.

Consider the choices:

1. Hillary, which means four more years of Obamaism, more non-vetted immigrants (especially from Syria), and saddled with ObamaCare's rising premiums, impossible deductibles, taxpayer bailouts, and a national debt on its way to $30 trillion.  
   
   
2. But what's to worry? We can just print more money. Can the inflationary wreckages of Zimbabwe, Argentina, and Venezuela be far behind?
   
   
3. And let's not forget Hillary's appointments of more free-wheeling Supreme Court Justices.
   
   
4. Bernie is like Hillary writ large. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bernie's call to socialism would cost at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade. That would pump up the deficit to $40 trillion. Add in the unknown cost of inflation and the debt sky rockets. It's crazy. But maybe not. Remember, he's a socialist. 
   
   
5. The Don. If you like what the man stands for good; it's an easy choice. But if not, then hold your nose and support the lesser of three evils. 

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Two of the biggest problems facing America – problems that we've known about for a long time but the system seems unable to properly address – are Budget Deficits and Failing Infrastructure. The reason both aren't addressed is the same for both: we've made a fetish out of Tax Cuts. Nobody wants to pay what it will take to solve these problems, and pay for them we must.

Besides basic cheapness, there's another reason why Tax Cuts, though unwise, remain in demand. I get the idea that the average (White) American thinks that the majority of the Federal Budget goes to welfare. And the majority of welfare goes to the undeserving (meaning Black people who refuse to work, preferring to ride some mythical gravy train). Both notions are incredibly inaccurate.

This explains why lavish Federal giveaways to the rich and to corporations don't raise their hackles quite as much as welfare – at least none of it's going to Black people, they figure.

The whole idea of “less government”, then, has its roots in unreconstructed racism. These people don't really want less government. They don't want to legalize drugs, for example. Rather than demand the government get out of our sex lives, they want the government to keep trying to control us. And they want the government to act as censor for our culture. Plus they want the government to have a rooting interest in Christianity, to endorse, promote and fund it. All of these actually entail more government, not less. “Less government” is little more than code for “stop giving our hard-earned money to lazy Black people”. That money, we should note, is a small part of the budget. So it's not about the money.

When the Tea Party complains about “political correctness”, it's mostly about them resenting the social unacceptability of their racist gut feelings. Donald Trump is their hero for opposing political correctness. And he's taken the lid off the subterranean racism that persists in America. It's coming out, and it's a heady thing for some people. The Klan and American Nazis are enthusiastic for Trump. So people need to consider whether these are what they want to get in bed with, politically.

Lately people get infuriated when they're accused of racism. But lately they protest too much. Some "Silent Majority"!

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA