School Real Estate Tax Increases by 4.84 Percent

The Bethlehem Area School Board made official an anticipated 4.84 percent real estate tax hike for the 2012-13 school year on Monday night.

The 2.17-mill increase was approved by a 6-3 vote, with board members Michele Cann, Irene Follweiler and Eugene McKeon dissenting.

The new school tax rate is 47.09 mills, meaning that a taxpayer with a home assessed at $50,000 will see their school tax bill go up by a little more than $100.

“I am truly confused and appalled that anyone can raise taxes at a rate of 4.8 percent in this economy today,” Follweiler said. “I feel sorry for the children of this district because they will be paying for this action for the rest of their lives.”

Two parents got up to thank the board for adopting a budget that rehired teachers and restored a popular teaming academic approach to intermediate education.

“Tax increases aren’t easy on anyone,” said Lisa Chemidlin, a Bethlehem Township mother of two district students. “Yes, I’ll have to dig deep. Maybe I’ll go to McDonald’s a few less times. I’ll make it work.

“Thank you for approving this. I appreciate it and my children appreciate it.”

There were also some critics from the small but vocal crowd of about 20, including Randy Toman, a Tea Party school board candidate who lost in the . “You people are failing,” he told the school board, who gathered at the auditorium to meet.

The approved tax increase is about double what the state’s Act 1 index alone would have allowed without state Department of Education approved exemptions for school construction, debt, special education costs and retirement expenses. The board also did not raise taxes as high as it could have – 5.92 percent – with the exemptions.

The new budget calls for $212.5 million in spending, an $8.7 million increase over the current year.

Among the biggest drivers of increasing costs in the new budget is a $3.4 million hike in what the district owes to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System.

Those costs are going to continue to increase dramatically over the next five years, said McKeon, who said he hoped to keep the district’s costs flat while it finds a way to deal with the increasing pension costs. That concern is why he voted against this budget, he said.