The May 24 Saucon Valley School Board meeting was predictably dour, as the inconvenient reality of the district’s precarious 2022-23 proposed final budget was again the dominant topic in advance of its impending May 31 deadline.

The proposal was initially discussed at length at the May 10 meeting, when a presentation by Business Manager David Bonenberger observed that Saucon’s short-term financial outlook was somewhat bleak, projecting a $3.8 million deficit for the year.

Superintendent Jaime Vlasaty explained that after the prior meeting’s closing suggestion to go “back to the drawing board,” the administration found a few more areas of significant savings.

The final cost of imminently-necessary sewer repairs at the high school will be about $630,000 less than their initial estimate, and plans for the purchase of several new school buses and vans will be deferred, saving another $405,000, she said.

Also, thanks to “shifts” in staffing (with several retirements and resignations pending) and other incidental reductions in salaries and benefits, personnel expenditures are projected to come in approximately $807,000 lower – with a tangible reduction of only two staff members, Vlasaty said.

The administration’s initial proposal would have raised the district’s property tax rate by 1.8166 mills - the maximum annual increase allowed by PA Act 1 – bringing the new rate to 55.2466 (raising approximately $1.1 million in additional revenue) with $2.7 million tapped from the district’s Fund Balance to cover the rest.

However, with the deficit now estimated to be around $2 million, their revised proposal recommended still fully “taxing to the index” while only taking $501,000 from the fund balance, Vlasaty continued.

Several board members expressed their concerns with the proposal, particularly the notion of still raising taxes on district residents by the maximum annual amount allowed by law.

Shawn Welch said that one-time infrastructure costs such as the high school sewer repair – which Bonenberger said constituted $1.2 million of the budget, were a “legitimate pull from the Fund Balance… what I’m [more] concerned about [are] benefits and salaries,” he added.

Bryan Eichfeld particularly expressed his consternation, saying in “10 and a half years [on the school board]... I’ve never seen a situation as dire as this. It’s the only reason I’m thinking about raising taxes.”

His colleague Cedric Dettmar agreed, saying “we’re going to have that same deficit this year and the year after that… if we don’t cover that this year.” He said that, for example, Bonenberger has locked in energy contracts at “reasonable rates” for the upcoming year, but beyond that, those expenditures are going to be “hundreds of thousands of dollars more.”

Dettmar continued to characterize holding steady on taxes as risky, adding “we may not raise taxes this year, but the bill is going to be even bigger next year… we can wait, but it’s going to be a lot worse.” Board Vice President Susan Baxter concurred, saying it would be “irresponsible for us not to raise taxes this year, unless we cut” elsewhere, on top of the administration’s proposal.

Board member Edward Andres dissented, saying “we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” He proposed tapping the Fund Balance “rather than imposing the pain of an increase on our taxpayers,” he added.

Ironically, Eichfeld, who admitted that 10 years ago, he “ran on, ‘don’t raise taxes,’” attempted to find a compromise, making a motion for a new proposal that included a more modest 1.2289 millage increase (2.3 percent), bringing the new rate to 54.5789 and generating $743,588 in new revenue.

Although Andres, Welch, Shamim Pakzad and Michael Karabin all voted against it, the proposed budget passed by a 5-4 margin. Despite his opposition, Welch said, “now the trick (will be) to make it stick with a zero percent increase next year.” Pakzad also reminded everybody the law dictates the proposed budget be advertised for 30 days and, as it needs to be passed by June 30, will appear on the June 28 meeting’s agenda.

In other news, both Vlasaty and several concerned parents addressed recent rumors circulating in the community regarding the extended absences of some teachers, administration and staff. Some items have been distributed on social media recently “in order to compromise their employment with the district,” she said.

The rumors “are simply inaccurate,” Vlasaty continued, and are “having a significantly negative impact” on staff and students. She reiterated that the district has appropriate channels for concerns to be investigated and addressed, adding, “personnel issues will not be publicly shared by myself.”

Furthermore, Vlasaty urged district residents to “be responsible… and use caution” in sharing or posting information online. She particularly asked her fellow adults to “be mindful” of the harm that this can cause students, staff and their family members.

Both district parents and students were critical of what they characterized as Vlasaty and the administration’s lack of transparency, however. District resident Pam Silverthorn said, “If we don’t inform our kids, they inform each other erroneously,” and suggested the administration could’ve better “controlled the (social media) narrative.”

Outgoing senior Hunter Gress added a current student’s perspective, saying: “We’ve noticed teachers or staff missing… we’re not stupid.” Gress said that he and his classmates were generally “confused and concerned” and agreed with Silverthorn.