[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6611724,"mediaKeyId","2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7","parentId",2892989,"title","Pine‑Richland presents fiscal plan: 3.5 positions proposed for attrition, paraprofessional cuts and activity fees eyed","audioSeconds",1331,"startMs",1851000,"endMs",3182000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7&start=1851&end=3182","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7/thumbnail_1851000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6611724/Pennsylvania/PineRichland-presents-fiscal-plan-35-positions-proposed-for-attrition-paraprofessional-cuts-and-activity-fees-eyed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611724-f7e7bbf7456ad1b9197736423f025bd7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163967&Signature=Xa1QWzzEJ-0P4F0uNJrszO2-7LEZKIcuf6GYeOmUCGGE3I9fwSXp1cMfK5Pm7XY6reTIq4pn73rkvcSuzxKSbDs82NbPtotvG6L8U9aLT4PfNJJUcDab1zpcNDFmrTkNHXGI3hpe1lvZbAD42qxhrEVlbQ8-aovE4t97np7yGMl609sZ-u4~hChGZQYVO~I7-duQ6lpGxJSXEkUlzxZtG8GEMjZ1Xnr9Ixjj0sn2KA2Wbj2KowRzraJlscz-Z2icki1xmHQI8gWAcHQHUeIhYb3SmvapvMOmpPheEpjQHcdGHM6uXK4G4fDHetdQc3kvwwvxxFvuSofDtSJBAp67xg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pine-Richland School District","date","2025-04-08T02:18:37.633Z","article","During the April 7 planning meeting, district administrators laid out a multi‑part plan to address a structural revenue shortfall that they said will worsen next year if unaddressed.

Dr. Miller said the district has relied on one‑time or capital surpluses in prior years and faces continuing pressure from the common level ratio (CLR) on local revenues. He told the board the district is recommending the attrition of 3.5 positions (reducing the district’s teacher count from 339.5 to approximately 336) and other structural changes rather than relying on one‑time reserves.

Key staffing and budget details presented by administration included:

- Teacher positions: recommended attrition of 3.5 positions, reducing the district total from 339.5 teachers to approximately 336.
- Special education teachers: the district currently lists about 37 special‑education teachers and recommended moving to 36.
- Paraprofessionals: current staffing is around 72 paraprofessionals; administration recommended reducing that number to 68. Dr. Miller said administrators worked with building leaders and reviewed specific student needs in making that recommendation and acknowledged the recommendation is “not without impact.”
- Band position at Eden Hall: Michael Chinchick, a music educator and the district’s music department chair, asked the board to “Please preserve the full time band position at Eden Hall,” saying the role is crucial for instrument instruction and supports many students including those with special needs. He warned that moving the position to 50% would reduce access to small‑group instruction.
- Insurance premium update: Allegheny County School Health Insurance Consortium premiums came in at a 5.7% increase rather than the 9% projected earlier; Dr. Miller said that lowered projected spending by about $354,000 compared with prior estimates.
- Budgetary reserve: the district currently holds about $450,000 in budgetary reserve; staff discussed possible reductions toward $375,000–$400,000 but cautioned that the reserve is the only place to fund unanticipated needs such as a newly enrolled student with intense special‑education needs.
- User fees and revenue: staff proposed modest adjustments to activity fees, facility‑use classifications and ticket prices intended to generate an estimated $125,000 of structural revenue. Administration described a recommended activity fee structure (a per‑student annual fee to cover multiple activities) and said fee waivers are available for students who qualify for reduced/free meals; building principals would work directly with families to address hardship.

Dr. Miller also discussed cyber charter costs and state legislation under consideration that could change how cyber charter tuition is assessed statewide; he said any legislation that moves to a flat rate could materially reduce district cyber charter expenses. He said the board could provide feedback to the legislature but that passage is out of local control.

Board members asked about equity and hardship protections for fee increases. Several board members said they were reluctant to put more costs on students and families; one board member supported modest increases to parking and facility‑use fees, calling them consumption‑based charges that target users rather than all taxpayers.

Dr. Miller said the board will see a proposed final budget in May; changes between the proposed final budget and the June final budget are possible but the administration urged the board to give timely feedback so staff can include structural revenue changes in the May proposal.

No final budget vote occurred on April 7; staff will bring proposed final figures to the May meeting and seek board action to advertise the budget.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 07, 2025 (Planning Meeting)","oneSentenceSummary","During the April 7 planning meeting, district administrators laid out a multi‑part plan to address a structural revenue shortfall that they said will worsen next year if unaddressed.","taxTitle","Pine-Richland SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",53139,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6611729,"Pine‑Richland discusses administrative rules to implement new library policy after contentious public comments",1619,5434000,7053000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7&start=5434&end=7053","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7/thumbnail_5434000.jpg","/articles/6611729/Pennsylvania/PineRichland-discusses-administrative-rules-to-implement-new-library-policy-after-contentious-public-comments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611729-e90030cfa9903b99a923285cee9d5122/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163967&Signature=llfKoWzzM391FUL5n4TkyBGQW6rIsQz3m9ALs-dRtRBogR9URzUXbuk7N6VLE5AhYVP4Th1OSKV~LxVORWcJJec3glMBHj-j1aXFNuwFX0DTDUqYWJerxfDGINVXzbjENq9-cWg1~VNusmx0yHY4nseWdEYm~JbbtEz14IzRzu2LQiesP1f4CGAK4KNLZSzsxAUxt7QOHdevlUHOpRuz~ZiDOffVk5yHlMOnpWnc5QtNvopN-PhUs731Qf8fPqXhlFhC-M~~q52osSUOCAtvILv~Zih3IQ2hK2MdyYr7gmSngZsqgi~~4OPLOY035kioMfvNn3skOQkPdz~uFKBEhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Pine‑Richland School District planning meeting April 7, administrators presented a draft administrative regulation (AR) to implement Policy 109.1 — Library Resources and described how librarians and principals would follow a 30‑day public notification and reconsideration process before materials are purchased or placed in school libraries.

Dr. Miller, the district administrator leading the presentation, said the AR is “applied prospectively” and is intended to spell out how new materials and requests for reconsideration will be handled, including steps for building‑level review, written rationales and a 30‑day public comment window. He told the board the AR was developed with input from the library chair, building librarians, principals and legal counsel and that the district will post recommended lists and a public notice to trigger the review period.

The AR clarifies that librarians should evaluate materials against a set of criteria but that no single item must meet every criterion. Dr. Miller described processes for handling potentially educationally unsuitable content and said classic literature and classic art are treated as a limited carve‑out within the policy language. He said he would personally review challenged works, may invite other staff to read them and would reduce his decision to writing before notifying the requester; appeals would go to the board president.

Multiple members of the public used the meeting’s public‑comment period to criticize the policy and the district’s handling of library materials. Rebecca Hoffman, who identified herself as the parent of four district students, questioned whether the policy process reflects student input and said she had reviewed documents showing community members flagged books with LGBTQ content. “They don’t think that librarians should be part of the committee despite their expertise,” Hoffman said, adding that she had been told library books have strong First Amendment protections.

Other speakers described a fraught climate around the policy. Tracy Howe said students who spoke at a prior meeting were “belittled by supporters” of the policy and urged the board to protect students who attend meetings. Brittany Kindersmith and other commenters also told the board they were worried that the review process had been used to target books addressing civil liberties and LGBTQ topics.

Board members asked procedural questions about how lists will be posted, when a 30‑day clock will start and what materials will be exempt from repeat review. Dr. Miller said posting would be concurrent with principal approval and that the district will place a link on the website and a Friday Flash notice so the public can find newly recommended titles quickly. He also said replacement copies of an already‑approved title would not repeat the full approval process.

No formal vote on the AR occurred at the planning meeting; Dr. Miller said the board could vote to waive multiple readings and consider the AR at an upcoming regular meeting if the board so chose.

The discussion followed the board’s March 17 vote to approve Policy 109.1; the AR is intended to operationalize that policy at the building level and through the district’s reconsideration form and timelines.

Looking ahead, Dr. Miller said approved lists will be recommended to the board for final action after the 30‑day review window and that any appeals would be handled according to the AR. Several board members said they would submit minor edits and asked staff to standardize capitalization and defined‑term usage before the AR returns for approval.

Proponents of retaining broad access to diverse materials urged the board to trust trained librarians’ professional judgment; opponents said the policy still grants staff discretion that they find troubling. The board did not vote on policy language at the April 7 planning meeting, and the AR will return to the board for further consideration and possible action at a future public meeting.","District administrators presented a draft administrative regulation to implement Policy 109.1 (Library Resources), prompting detailed discussion about selection and reconsideration procedures and multiple public speakers who said the policy will curtail student access to books and target LGBTQ‑themed titles.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6611719,"Votes at a glance: Pine‑Richland planning meeting approves facilities and personnel items; amendment to require signed governance pledge fails",3003,1832000,4835000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7&start=1832&end=4835","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892989-28189f1b47bf2c5b194232a385638ac7/thumbnail_1832000.jpg","/articles/6611719/Pennsylvania/Votes-at-a-glance-PineRichland-planning-meeting-approves-facilities-and-personnel-items-amendment-to-require-signed-governance-pledge-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611719-8b5808aa913c24fae73c8dac887e94aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163967&Signature=okGFKVPrufe94IxdDN9CCiBhBYTYl~2RUOuCPVlPo8FBLDlEBMn2hmR4SIpZEfoIYMWtCQuOyASEc7zc1Df72ZjrL1XP4JbrKjm4FqRvkXqACPLsFbvQiD0jw-vJlneNBDcoSAYrYBR4GV6RcXvhXuWjfdkLC4pbHyR7nK0BTPKycwno6xCYUCAbiOBDwqbGRHcKBy0NJzzlpMFLg45sN8v9eV7~NKW-H2QqzBs-6GsgxT5-2hizdYlUOb~9wuAuWyzW1mHLLhhBmvw-Nf06cbvQOcn5GRiEcm1HUpmXdCE5K9fjI4XIbLiJvfU9BRKzCaTQHiATJ9HecZ6JKp-PJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the April 7 Pine‑Richland planning meeting the board approved a number of consent and action agenda items and considered but rejected a proposed governance amendment.

What the board approved (motion votes recorded as \"motion passes\" in the transcript):

- Approval of minutes (motion to approve as attached). The motion passed with no further discussion recorded.
- Consent agenda: Items 3.02 through 3.04 were approved as presented.
- Item 4.01 — HVAC replacement consulting engineering proposal: The board approved the attached professional services proposal from Tower Engineering to provide schematic design, bidding documents and construction administration for a full HVAC system replacement at Hance Elementary School.
- Item 4.02 — Middle School gym equipment replacement: The board approved Manpreet Strayer Furnishings to remove the divider wall and replace basketball backstops and equipment in the middle school competition gym as part of a refresh project at a cost of $67,338.
- Item 4.03 — PREA/PRE SPA personnel appointments (as attached): Motion approved.
- Item 4.04 — Logan Road right‑of‑way realignment at the middle‑school entrance: Motion approved.
- Item 4.05 — Third and final reading of batch policies (Triple I Local Board Procedures): Motion approved after debate and a later vote.

What the board considered and rejected:

- Proposed amendment to OOO local board procedure (principles for governance and leadership): A motion to add language stating that a school director who does not sign the Principles for Governance and Leadership would not be entitled to a subject‑matter lead position for a joint governance topic failed. The transcript records a final roll call result of 3 yes, 4 no, 1 absent; the motion failed.

Other procedural votes and motions: a motion to add an agenda item to reconsider the counseling opt‑in/opt‑out decision failed on a 4–4 tie at roll call. Several business and informational items (linked purchases, grant/contract renewals, upcoming meetings) were presented for consideration at the regular April meeting; those were informational at this planning session and will return for formal action at the April regular meeting where required.

The board moved to adjourn for an executive session to discuss a personnel matter after the meeting.

Notes: The transcript records routine motions as made and seconded but typically does not capture named movers and seconders for each item; where roll‑call tallies were read into the record, they are reported above. For several passed items, the audio record shows unanimous or voice‑vote approval but did not record numerical tallies in the planning meeting transcript.","The Pine‑Richland board approved a set of consent and action items including an HVAC replacement schematic design contract for Hance Elementary, middle‑school gym equipment replacement and several personnel and facilities motions. A proposed amendment to tie committee leadership to signing 'Principles for Governance and Leadership' failed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pine‑Richland presents fiscal plan: 3.5 positions proposed for attrition, paraprofessional cuts and activity fees eyed

Pine‑Richland discusses administrative rules to implement new library policy after contentious public comments

Votes at a glance: Pine‑Richland planning meeting approves facilities and personnel items; amendment to require signed governance pledge fails