Taxation without Representation

 

Aaron Young started off his article in the Gettysburg Times recapitulating the 12 May study session of the Littlestown Area School District with an assertion that the “….Board approved the preliminary proposed 2008-2009 budget Monday night, and for district residents, taxes are on the rise.”  This is very curious, since I received a copy of the agenda at the end of the prior week and such a vote was not listed as an activity to be conducted at the study session.  In fact, the minutes for that meeting published in the board packet for the upcoming regular board meeting on 19 May did not include that vote.  All votes taken by the board are required to be published in the meeting and such action is required to be published in the legal section of the newspaper to warn residents that the budget is available for their inspection.

 

With no recorded vote by the members of the Board, the citizens and taxpayers of LASD have been unrepresented for this purported tax increase, state law has been violated and another unjust reach into the wallets of district residents is about to occur.

 

Mr. Aaron cites the school years from 1999-2000 to 2002-2003 as being without a tax increase, but he refers only to real estate. The budgets adopted in June of 1999 and 2002 included increases in the occupation tax estimated to raise $142,000 and $342,089, respectively – a total of $484,089.  The latter brought the occupation tax up to 100%, not because it was needed, but because, under state law, the Board would forego any opportunity after that budget to increase it from its level of 75% to anything higher in succeeding years.  To demonstrate that neither increase was needed,  the fund balance at the end of the 1998-1999 school year was $538,127 and rose to $2,237,209 at the end of the next year and to $3,328,081 at the end of the 2002-2003 school year.

 

What a joke that the school board so “graciously” estimated the whopping tax rebate in the 2003-2004 school year to be $77, 715.  It even turned out that the fund balance decreased that year by $88,019 to a paltry ending balance of $3,740,062.  Far more than state law allowed at the time, but $1,132,641 more than they had projected in their budget.

 

The succeeding four straight years of tax increases were projected to yield a total of $1,680,533.  The projected ending fund balance budgeted for the close of the 2006-2007 school year was $1,379,373.  The audited fund balance was $2,286,294, in excess of $900,000 over the projection. The current proposed budget estimates that the ending fund balance as of June 30, 2008 will be barely under $1,000.000 in excess of the budget projection from last year.  Experience tells us that it will be at least a couple hundred thousand dollars more than that when the audit is performed. 

 

There is no need for a tax increase.  The school district needs to learn to be satisfied with the ample money it now has to run its affairs.  The public and voters, in addition, need to be represented by proper adherence to laws and procedures when such a tax increase is contemplated.  The Board needs to look at its own record of abusing the beleaguered citizens of LASD.

 

An amended text of the article "Taxation without Representation" - indicating that legal notice was published in the newspaper just in time to meet legal requirements before the final vote to approve the budget in June - was not received before inclusion on the website.  Be advised that it is now officially available for review by the public at the district as of legal notice given Friday, 16 May.  This information was not available when the article was composed and submitted.