On April 22, the Salisbury Township School District school directors held a virtual operations committee meeting using the Zoom meeting platform. The public was invited to attend by signing up in advance to receive a unique link and access code to the meeting.

The first and main order of business was to link up with Fielding International, the firm tasked with finding, designing and implementing creative, education-centered solutions to Salisbury’s school facility problems.

Salisbury Township School District Superintendent Dr. Randy Ziegenfuss prefaced the report by asking the community to receive the results of the report through a lens of the profile of a graduate developed in 2016. “There are two main questions you should marinate on,” Ziegenfuss said. “Will Western Salisbury Elementary be included in the capital plan five years from now? And, based on the 2020-2021 budget and future plans, when should we consider reconfiguring?”

Representatives from Fielding International Cierra Mantz, Nathan Strenge and James Seaman brought a virtual presentation to meeting attendees regarding findings and suggestions after their discovery activities during their visit in January 2019. The desire expressed most prevalently by the community, staff and stakeholders was that new facilities allow alignment of the physical learning environment and the vision of learning.

As part of FI’s audit, they visited all five district buildings and concluded that currently, physical learning environments are not built to support the vision articulated by the community and also the age and condition of the buildings is driving a larger disconnect between those two principles. The two other underlying causes facilitating the need for a major overhaul of facilities are siloed communities between the eastern and western side of Salisbury as well as facilities’ notable lack of long-term sustainability.

Seaman presented the six options developed by FI and provided details on each. First would be to perform maintenance and small-scale renovations as needed on the existing buildings or maintain status quo. This option would be the least costly, but would range over a long period of time and would not account for larger issues looming over the district.

Option 2 and 2B would be to leave the district with two campuses and renovate the middle school and renovate and expand Harry S Truman Elementary School or replace the middle school entirely and renovate and expand HST. Either of these options would take a while to successfully complete, in the range of three to five years and have a minor to moderate impact on improving operations efficiency.

Options 3 and 3B would entail combining district facilities onto one campus. Option 3 would be renovate the middle school and build a new elementary school which would take a while to complete and have only a moderate beneficial impact on operations efficiency. Option 3B would replace the middle school and elementary school all together, which would take a short time (likely less than two years) and would greatly improve efficiency of operations for the district as a whole.

Option 4 would be to combine all of the schools buildings into one central facility. This option, while one of the most drastic, would take relatively little time to complete and create the most positive change on operations and efficiency.

Each option presented was accompanied by a visual mock-up, which would of course be altered and tailored to specific needs should that option be selected.

The financial analysis provided estimated costs for the options detailed by FI to come in anywhere from $52 million and ranging up to $65 million, with the price varying a good deal based on the actual details and plans implemented when an option is selected.

Feedback from the board came as members had questions regarding the visualization of the spaces the representatives detailed in their presentation, with questions from directors Mary Ziegler and Audrey Frick. Seaman responded, “What you’re looking at is a master plan, it is the big picture right now. When you decide what you want to do, Fielding International will explore in-depth what the needs and desires are for learning.”

The next step will be for FI to incorporate these options into a final report, which should be available in the near future. Ziegenfuss then thanked the presenters and asked again for those on the call to ask themselves how the spaces the children learn in puts agency in the hands of the learner, rather than solely (or largely) in the hands of teachers and administrators.

The next order of business was a budget update by Chief Financial Officer Michael Taylor. Positive impacts to the budget for the 2020-2021 school year were noted, such as an approved exception through ACT 1, which will bolster income to the district through taxes.

With three major points in play, the board will be able to close a large gap in the school budget: a millage rate increase approved by the board, reconfiguration approved by the board and maintenance and service staff positions contracted out to a third party.

With those three points in place, budget savings can be found in the following areas: salaries $171,860, benefits $80,089, repairs and maintenance $431,134, utilities $62,300, supplies $11,000 and security costs $3,500. Noting a partial loss of $29,655 from state subsidy, the total savings for the district would be $730,229.

Contracting out service and maintenance positions would save an additional $385,000, which would mean the budget deficit would stand at $1,595,561, as opposed to $4,062,628 with no reconfiguration in play.

While this seems like a clear path to erasing the deficit, Taylor outlined several items that remain largely in flux that could change. Budget items that remain in question are: any potential changes to the Pennsylvania state education budget, tax assessment adjustments in Salisbury Township, employee retirements, support staff negotiations and contracting, whether or not the district proceeds with the reconfiguration and any potential legislation or further financial impact as a result of COVID-19.

The board discussed in detail budget items tied to maintenance, specifically projects at WSE involved with the reduction of mold, which has been a recurring issue. George Gatanis, board president said, “I wouldn’t feel comfortable not addressing them (the mold issues). For major improvements, for capital improvements like this, at least six figures, money would need to be borrowed to complete them.” He did mention there are systems in place for mold prevention while schools are unoccupied.

Next, Taylor presented briefly on a Tax Revenue Anticipation Note or TRAN. In these uncertain times, there can be delays in tax funds to the district from the state. Salisbury’s revenue is in fully for this year and the money must last into later summer months or even as late as September due to anticipated delays. The TRAN acts as a bridge to help districts in need until tax revenue comes in. The note must be repaid in the same fiscal year that it was borrowed. In addition, the amount taken out is only the required value to cover payroll and repaid once the tax revenue arrives.

Currently, no action needs to be taken on this and the board will revisit this option in May.

After the presentation by Taylor, the operations committee meeting adjourned to allow for a special board meeting.

Ziegler presented a furlough resolution. This resolution provides for the reduction of professional staff in the district for economic reasons and is required by law to pass 60 days prior to the final budget adoption if the district is indeed considering furloughing any staff. Ziegler pointed out passing the resolution does not mean furloughs will happen, but is simply a legality that must be in place if this course of action becomes necessary. The board did unanimously approve the resolution.

The next operations committee meeting will take place May 6.