The Salisbury Township School District operations meeting held Jan. 17 began with an overview and debate over the necessity for the varsity softball dugouts.

“We are coming in right where we expected, in the $65,000 range for the girls varsity dugouts,” Director of Maintenance, Buildings and Grounds William Brackett said. The new dugouts will be comparable to the varsity boys dugouts and be constructed of cinder block and include sideline safety fencing and a new backdrop.

A set of steps leading down the embankment to the tennis courts was included in the bid for the dugouts. Brackett said in order to save resources, the bid for the steps will be separate from that of the dugouts and since the project is below bid threshold, it can be done by local contractors and the district will not have to pay the prevailing wage.

In order for the construction to begin on the dugouts over the summer, Brackett said it was imperative the board take a vote on the project during the meeting.

The room was silent for a few moments, then Director George Gatanis asked members of the board for their thoughts regarding the expense for the improvements.

Director Susan Lea was the first to respond.

“I had a member of the community reach out to me with something we discussed in the last meeting, which was the perception that, in the same news article she read about raising taxes, the district is going to spend all this money on a softball field. She was very concerned about the expense for the dugouts and I tried to explain the costs,” Lea said.

“My focus comes into this; we have similar offerings for the boys baseball team, how can we not have the same for the girls softball team?” Vice President Samuel DeFrank said.

“Why wouldn’t we do it knowing that we have a different pot of cash for the project and that is where we are drawing the funds from and already have it allocated?

“How do we not support the women and what they are doing out there and give them just as nice of facilities as the boys?”

“I agree with Sam; we just have a field over there. There is nothing besides the backdrop,” Director Carol Klinger said.

Brackett added the field does have fencing and a bench but there is nothing to protect the players from the elements.

“The public doesn’t understand where the money is coming from,” Klinger said.

“We allocate funds for projects of this nature and we do the allocations systematically and it has no direct effect on what we are trying to do for the budget. It sets a sense of fairness and this is an opportunity to equalize this for the athletes,” DeFrank said.

Director Joseph Gnall remarked that he “agreed” with both sides of the argument.

“This might be one of those things that we have to visibly take it on the chin and do the right thing. We have to do what is best for our student athletes.”

Director Robert Kulp said he supported funding the project for the steps down the embankment, but “for this year, I wouldn’t be comfortable supporting money for the dugouts.”

“I have thought about it hard; the money is a big number,” Board President Frank Frankenfield said. “I went out and looked at the fields, and my concerns are that the fence is not high enough, and there is nothing to protect the players from the wind and the sun. The last thing we need is to have the players being beaten up by the elements.”

Gatanis asked Board Secretary Robert Bruchak to elaborate on the funding for the project.

Bruchak said funding the dugouts would come from the district’s capital reserve fund and not the general fund which pays the bills for the district as well as salaries and benefits.

The reserve fund is set up for capital projects, those that require larger assets in the district and the construction of the dugouts would be considered proper use of those funds.

According to Bruchak, the district has $485,000 currently in reserves for such projects.

“The reserve is built up over time using money leftover from borrowing.”

The board voted to approve the dugouts.

Lea asked Brackett if there were projects in the near future that would affect those resources.

Brackett replied that the track at the stadium is nearing the end of its lifespan and since the last improvement of the track involved resurfacing, the next improvement would require a complete replacement.

Along with the new track, Brackett suggested the district piggyback a field replacement which would save the district “considerable money.” Brackett noted the field is also nearing the end of its lifespan and warranties.

The expense for the track and stadium field is $1.5 million, requiring the district to borrow to cover the expense.

“The roofs over the gymnasiums at the high school are out of warranty as of 2017, but are tight and holding and not showing any signs of severe aging,” Brackett continued.

Brackett suggested repairs to the roof would probably be required in another year or two and would be at an expense of between $500,000 and $600,000.

Current improvement projects at the district include domestic hot water repair at the high school and dusk to dawn lighting at Harry S Truman Elementary School.

Brackett said the hot water heater that provides the water to the gymnasium and sinks is no longer working and the district is using a line from the old boiler room at the school as a backup. Hot water has been restored to the gymnasium using this system. In order to see if the system will function for the entire school, the maintenance staff will need to turn on all the faucets in the school. The system will need to be tested when the students are not in class for the day.

Typically, noted Brackett, the only groups using the showers all at one time are the band groups who rent the facilities over the summer and the Salisbury students don’t often use the showers.

Should the system function successfully during the test, a replacement will not be required. Repairs to the system, if needed, would be $14,000. Replacement of the entire unit is $17,000.

Brackett said if the unit does need repairs, the district should consider replacement of the 12-year-old unit with an energy saving “instant-on” unit that doesn’t require storage and heating of 600 gallons of water.

Brackett will present his findings after the system test is performed.

Concerning lighting at HST, the high poles near Gaskill Avenue are not functioning.

Brackett said GC Electric Co., Inc. can not locate the break in the power supply to the lighting; however, the company believes that for $6,500 it could tie the power to the poles near Gaskill to the shorter poles located closest to the school. Brackett noted since the location of the break in power is unknown, this may not solve the problem.

An alternative solution to the lighting dilemma would be to have PPL install dusk to dawn light poles similar to those at Salisbury Middle School. The district pays PPL $460 each month for the service. Should an issue arise with the lighting, the district contacts PPL for repairs.

Four poles at HST school would cost the district $62 each month. PPL would own the poles, the district would install LED lights on the poles and PPL would provide electricity and service any issues. The district would be responsible for removing the existing poles.

The board chose the PPL option for the dusk to dawn lighting.

Brackett said another project not on the agenda involved venting for the planned fitness room at Salisbury Middle School. An exhaust unit would need to be installed at an expense of $2,000.

The board noted the fitness room had not yet been approved and will need more clarification regarding the room to proceed forward with any plans for the remodel or improvements to the room.

Assistant Superintendent Lynn Fuini-Hetten said the plans for the fitness room will be on the agenda for the upcoming curriculum and technology meeting.

The 2018-2019 preliminary budget is slated to be approved Feb. 7, the proposal of the final budget will occur May 7 and the final approval is expected at the June 13 board meeting.

Regarding the budget, according to Bruchak, the value of a collected mil is a little less than $1.3 million and the township will collect 96 to 97 percent of the gross mil.

Revenue from the state and government remain level funded in the budget, and the challenges to the district’s budget including expenses for the retirement fund, health insurance, salaries and charter schools are similar to years prior.

The Public School Employees’ Retirement contribution rate will increase from 32.57 percent to 33.43 percent and health insurance costs will increase 4 percent.

According to Bruchak, the current millage rate for the district is 18.4527 and the ACT I index is 2.4 percent which would allow the district to increase taxes by a little less than a half a mil. or $571,459.

The preliminary budget requires generating $38,071,131 to cover expenses. Without a tax increase it leaves the district with a $1.5 million gap. With the ACT I index increase of 2.4 percent, the district still falls short by just under $1 million.

Bruchak noted administration is examining cuts and alternate revenue resources to aid the budget but will also apply for exceptions when filing the budget with the state which will allow the district to increase the percentage of a tax increase.

“We need more education-friendly state representatives. We need to look into the next election to see who is supporting public education or we are going to go down this road every single year,” Frankenfield said.

In other district news, Bruchak reported the audit for the prior school year came back “clean” without issues and the district has a strong rating.

The next operations committee meeting will be held 7 p.m. Feb. 5 at the administration building.