Reducing School Costs Must Be Part of Property Tax Relief Remedy

By Senator Michael A. O'Pake (D-Berks)
Senate Democratic Whip

          Harrisburg, June 20, 2007 -- As we return to the drawing board following the widespread voter rejection of the Act 1 tax shift that would have increased local income taxes to reduce local homeowner school property taxes, no fair analysis of the outcome can dismiss the fact that Pennsylvania's people are just plain fed up with taxes -- period.
          That's why, as we renew our efforts to find common ground to replace the archaic and inequitable property tax as the principal means of school finance in much of Pennsylvania, controlling and reducing school costs must be made a fundamental part of the solution.
          The fact is that while Pennsylvania's taxpayers have -- throughout the years --  contributed more and more and more at both the state and local level to provide the "thorough" system of public education that our state Constitution requires and that Pennsylvania's children deserve, it is time that Pennsylvania state government places a renewed emphasis on delivering the "efficient" system of public education that our state Constitution also requires and that our taxpayers deserve.
          Along these lines, the General Assembly is awaiting a report from a special 13-member Task Force on School Cost Reduction (created by a little-publicized provision of Act 1) that is charged by law to do the following:
          -- conduct a comprehensive review of the various categories of public school costs, the historic rate of increase in categories of public school costs and determine the reasons behind the increases;
          -- examine the impact of federal and state mandates on school districts;
          -- determine whether any federal or state mandates should be eliminated, revised or better funded;
          -- identify best practices used by school districts in Pennsylvania and other states to provide services in a cost-effective manner;
          -- offer options and viable recommendations to reduce costs to school districts; and
          -- provide a report that thoroughly discusses options and viable recommendations considered and express clear rationales for options not recommended.
          It is my fervent hope that the report of the Task Force, expected in the fall, will provide substantive recommendations that will put us on a solid path of making sure that every one of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars is being spent wisely and efficiently on the core mission of public education -- and that is in the classroom where the principal investment belongs.
          In the meantime, I have joined in co-sponsoring legislation (SB 663) aimed at facilitating a greater sharing of services among school districts to save taxpayer costs.
          Appropriately called the "Common Cents Program," our legislation seeks to promote improved service delivery, efficiency and economy of operation by implementing shared services cost savings in such areas as student transportation, certain instructional services, health services, purchasing, finance and payroll, facilities and real estate, human resources and technology, among others.
          As a matter of fact, in a recent report on the cost savings potential of consolidating school districts, the idea of greater utilization of shared services was given relatively high marks as an alternative to the more controversial option of consolidation -- although consolidation is recommended for consideration in the case of smaller districts.
          Be that as it may, it is abundantly clear from the outcome of the Act 1 referenda that Pennsylvania's taxpayers are demanding a comprehensive solution to relieve the property tax burden once and for all.
          And that comprehensive solution entails not only a redoubling of efforts to replace the notorious property tax with a broader and fairer revenue source, but a concerted effort to eliminate any and all unnecessary, inefficient, duplicative and/or wasteful spending wherever it exists.
          Straight talk demands that everybody engaged in this debate understand that there is no free lunch.  At the same time, our taxpayers told us loud and clear on May 15 that their pockets are not bottomless pits.  And, we're listening.                    

###