The Salisbury Township School Board held an operations committee meeting March 1.

Before the meeting, an executive session was held to discuss contract and personnel matters as well as litigation between the district and Lehigh Valley Health Network.

At the start of the meeting, citizens were invited to express their concerns or questions to the board. Resident Elizabeth Young began the discussion saying she has been closely following the operations committee meetings through coverage in The Press and she wanted to recognize the careful planning and data gathering on the part of the board in an effort to make thoughtful decisions.

That being said, Young did convey her perception that her concerns are largely unheard by administration and communication is lacking. She stated surveys sent home by the district are filled out and the results are not shared with parents. Consequently, decisions are made based on the outcomes of the surveys which leaves her feeling disconnected from the process entirely.

Young also wanted to learn more about the issues presented by the board concerning modular classrooms and the options presented by the administration concerning Western Salisbury Elementary School, as well as the movement of grade levels throughout the district. She added parents have never been formally asked their opinions on some matters and she is frustrated.

Esther Lindström, expressed her desire to stay involved and connected with the important issues in the district but she feels she needs to dig for the information on the district’s website. These barriers to information inhibit her ability to keep abreast of community oriented decisions, she said.

Lindström, who has a background in special education and trains special education teachers at Lehigh, encouraged the board to consider that if they are going to move students into different spaces whether it is modular classrooms or third and fourth graders at Western Elementary School, to make sure special education students are educated with their peers. She said educating third and fourth grade students in a K-1 building is not a developmentally appropriate setting.

After hearing citizens’ comments, Director Christopher Freas reported he had heard from several citizens through email about modular classrooms and some of the other options being considered.

One question posed to him was why the district is not considering building one building for students in kindergarten through grade 8. The district had looked into this option before the pandemic. Simply put, the district has a borrowing capacity of approximately $42 million and the cost estimate for a new building was $66 million. Given current increases in materials, a K-8 building is even farther out of reach.

Freas also welcomed residents to contact him through email if they have questions and are not able to make it to board meetings.

Superintendent Lynn Fuini-Hetten pointed out she appreciates the feedback she received and doesn’t want anyone to feel she doesn’t care or is unapproachable. She is more than happy to talk directly with families about their concerns.

Fuini-Hetten also addressed the dissemination of the results of the surveys saying the information was presented at board meetings and she will keep that in mind going forward.

Director Rebecca Glenister also said all board meetings can be viewed on YouTube and meetings are archived.

Board minutes are also available to read as transcripts of the meetings.

During the operations committee, chair Thomas Spinner turned the meeting over to D’Huy Project Engineer Andrew Mather, who gave a presentation aimed at updating the board on the construction of a six classroom modular.

Each 850 square foot classroom would have its own fire alarm, Internet and intercom connection to the main building as well as an HVAC unit. There would be a covered and enclosed walkway and an emergency access road around the back of the building to address a fire department safety concern.

The schematic site plan positions the modular classrooms behind the gym and cafeteria of the existing building. If the project is approved by June it will take approximately 16 months to complete at an estimated cost of $2 million.

Board members raised questions related to what can be done to extend the life of modular classrooms and how to minimize disruptions to the school day given the 16-month construction timeline. D’Huy said they would work closely with the district to avoid testing schedules or other events.

As for extending the life of the modular classrooms they do not expect them to last more than 20 years given the nature of their design. They are temporary structures and are designed with this in mind.

D’Huy said typically, districts utilize modular classrooms as a temporary fix while they construct more permanent structures.

Director Joseph Kuzo expressed concern for the condition of the existing building and the inequity of having some students learning within a new space while other students are in the old space. He cautioned the board in viewing the use of the modular classrooms as a permanent solution.

In Kuzo’s view it is a simple fix to a long-term problem and he is convinced that if the district works with architects they can come up with a more aesthetically pleasing building with some renovations.

Spinner pointed out that given the district’s financial situation, other options previously discussed are beyond what the district can afford.

Director Sarah Nemitz said she has always viewed the use of the modular classrooms as a way to address a short-term problem while developing a long-term solution.

“We are not committed to keeping them for 20 years,” Nemitz said.

Director Laura McKelevy reiterated an idea she floated at a previous meeting by saying, “we always have the option of not doing anything.

“We can do without the team meeting space and have specialists move from room to room to teach their content. Do I like this idea? No. But it is certainly cheaper than financing temporary buildings.”

Spinner summed up the discussion by saying the directors were not going to make decisions at this meeting, “but we definitely have more information about the modular classrooms from the engineers and we need more answers about Western whether we lease, raze or maintain the building. We have more pieces of the puzzle to consider before the next operations committee meeting including the option to do nothing. There are no easy answers and there will always be trade-offs.”

The board also previewed the 2023-2024 school calendar which, as in the past, begins the school year before the Labor Day holiday.

Teachers will report to school Aug. 22 and all students report Aug. 29 with student orientation day being held Aug.28.

One change to the student calendar is the removal of the February snow makeup day preceding the Presidents Day holiday.

Snow days that need to be made up will be added at the end of the year which is tentatively June 12.

Next on the agenda for the board’s consideration was the transportation software agreement which was presented by Chris Smith, coordinator of technology.

In Smith’s presentation, he outlined the limitations of the Transfinder Pro software currently used, highlighted three different software options he researched and gave his recommendation based on the district needs and the affordability of the product.

Transfinder Plus seemed to fit the bill as it was less labor intensive due to its ability to integrate with the districts Student Integration System. The software is able to assign students to buses based on their location and it will also support bussing assignments for field trips and athletics which is a function the current system is not able to support.

If the board were to approve the new software system at the regular board meeting in March, data migration would begin in April followed by training and support in May. Full data migration would be completed by summer and the system would be implemented in time for the start of the 2023-2024 school year.

After a one-time fee of $15,525 for implementation and training costs, the Transfinder Plus system will cost an extra $1,400 more per year than the current system. The system will, however, have the ability to automate a large portion of the day-to-day tasks and allow more staff to be trained in how to use the system.

Currently, Smith is the only district employee able to run the system since he has taken over the role of director of transportation in addition to his role as coordinator of technology. Funding for the system is currently in the budget.

Also on the agenda for Smith is a request to increase Internet bandwidth from 1 gig to 10 gig in order to keep Internet systems from slowing when updates are called for.

The next meeting of the operations committee will be 7 p.m. April 12 in the administration building, 1140 Salisbury Road.