[{"_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",6264323,"mediaKeyId","3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450","parentId",3097353,"title","Spring‑Ford Area SD board adopts proposed 2025‑26 budget amid rising health and commercial assessment costs","audioSeconds",3001,"startMs",1187000,"endMs",4188000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450&start=1187&end=4188","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450/thumbnail_1187000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6264323/Pennsylvania/SpringFord-Area-SD-board-adopts-proposed-202526-budget-amid-rising-health-and-commercial-assessment-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264323-1d4e8ca4bbebdf667fa11ab24f128d8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770856213&Signature=N1kJEG6kwfFeBAm~leJigUuMpiLIM0GNigcKf3C5KvsKDfxNLijAtzcUT1yFFZHrz1IX5ycQUutyy7nAy-8nV7GtORhXAfqRmglxxQDIqVbILB1InH~dYoqx96JuaqXua3X3vpVKyzCzfqzjbw-XUfhN7vb9jeiGPsfW3hGrjyq2zHVYu3V4DuAuPj1S~XFYqihpSsgxt-U5QkZpI0Ey~0x2OA9Qy-pK59IS9~zdgW8uBDIMg6wDKBGb5dv0xUPCCA51JshyrSFWzQoXonItPJbxPrmGAZBNg1-m47Zd81e5FJVt5v-KaSZOaGIfMQ8HOLWDsPxeO5vnVp3T12EOfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Spring-Ford Area School District","date","2025-04-23T17:33:54.717Z","article","The Spring‑Ford Area SD Board of School Directors on April 22 adopted a proposed final budget for the 2025–26 school year after a staff presentation that cited a 20% year‑over‑year rise in health‑insurance costs and several large commercial assessment appeals as key pressures.

Board members voted 6–2 to approve submission of the proposed final budget required under Act 1; the vote clears the district to keep options open for final adoption per statutory timelines.

Why it matters: The presentation said the district faces a near‑term gap on the order of $7.36 million and a potential tax impact that would exceed the state Act 1 index unless the board uses options such as referendum exceptions, drawing down a portion of an upcoming debt‑service drop, or a combination of measures. Trustees and staff emphasized uncertainty in state and federal subsidies and the need to weigh short‑term fixes against long‑term borrowing capacity.

At a briefing to the board, district finance staff outlined revenue and expense drivers. \"We're going to talk about our proposed final budget for the 25‑26 school year,\" said Mr. Fink, who led the presentation, describing changes since the preliminary budget adopted in November. He told trustees that preliminary state estimates included modest increases in state subsidy lines (about $200,000 year‑over‑year in the general education subsidy and roughly $100,000 for special education), but that rising personnel costs and health‑insurance claims were the dominant pressures.

Fink said the district had incorporated several favorable adjustments — such as reduced PSERS rate assumptions and some departmental cost reductions — but that health insurance still required an added, multi‑million dollar provision after an actuarial \"second look.\" \"The big deal here is health insurance on the expense side of the budget,\" he said, adding later that health insurance rates had risen \"almost a 20 plus percent increase year over year.\"

The presentation included other notable items: charter and cyber charter costs were described as an ongoing budget strain (the district cited roughly $15,000 per student as the typical cost when a student attends a charter school rather than a district building), and the business office flagged several recent commercial real‑estate assessment appeals that reduced projected assessment growth and could lower expected real‑estate tax revenue. Fink told trustees the district had already absorbed about a $1.1 million hit from one assessed property adjustment and that a further appeal could lead to an additional multi‑million dollar reduction in revenues that must be planned for.

Trustees pressed staff on timing and options. Finance Committee chair Theresa Westwood, participating by phone, reiterated that the district is pursuing both near‑term options and longer‑term efficiencies, saying the board and staff \"continue to look at ways to save money for the district without trying to negatively impact outcomes for our students and our staff.\" Dr. Wright and other trustees emphasized the board has flexibility on timing: approving the proposed final budget tonight preserves the option to adopt a final budget in May or to continue work into June under state deadlines.

Fink walked trustees through a list of choices to close the gap: (1) use referendum exceptions permitted under Act 1; (2) apply a portion of the expected debt‑service drop; or (3) a combination of both. He noted that without the large commercial assessment appeals and the recent health‑insurance increase, the district would likely be below the Act 1 index.

Board action and next steps: By voting to adopt the proposed final budget for public posting, the board met an Act 1 procedural requirement and preserved scheduling flexibility for a final vote. Trustees said they will continue finance committee work and discussions with state representatives on subsidy assumptions; staff will return to the finance committee with updated figures ahead of the final adoption.

Public comment: Two local residents raised concerns during public comment about removal of a district \"report card\" policy and about the district's rising budget. Roland Olsen asked why the district had removed a metrics‑reporting policy and linked that concern to taxpayer oversight. Gary Wheaton of Upper Providence Township clarified the citizen's policy reference. Board chair and staff responded that the state ESSA report card remains publicly available on the district website and that the policy committee would revisit policy changes raised by the public.

What the vote did: Approving a proposed final budget is primarily a procedural step under Pennsylvania's Act 1 budget process. Trustees noted the vote does not fix the final tax rate and that final adoption can still be delayed within statutory limits.

The board's finance committee will meet again in May to refine numbers and consider how to close the gap before final adoption.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Spring-Ford Work Session - April 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Spring‑Ford Area SD Board of School Directors voted 6–2 on April 22 to adopt a proposed final budget for 2025–26 after staff warned of steep health‑insurance increases, rising charter costs and large commercial assessment appeals that together create a multi‑million‑dollar funding gap.","taxTitle","Spring-Ford Area SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",38705,"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},6264313,"Spring‑Ford discusses E‑Rate, cabling and hardware upgrades; board told federal support may be uncertain",811,7281000,8092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450&start=7281&end=8092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450/thumbnail_7281000.jpg","/articles/6264313/Pennsylvania/SpringFord-discusses-ERate-cabling-and-hardware-upgrades-board-told-federal-support-may-be-uncertain","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264313-2ad22514a9303a6c7bca747663e833a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770856213&Signature=jZYx3x6woFP07UbPSM0wMUQsnYKNWw5-DwNaPK051-GdS3sMZoBkAlsPaI0dK-b8-0uWXgOnEfsnXPWtZKioEKWGs201H2MSS2Et2KMLr1QTVAKLzHDnR5QjSDfCvu6vgstvX4q7vu3mHMd5zQKSNQGDpOtgkjM9kYUz1PTFZWgZerF2PtLExzuCl2m3QtHD9deETnV8nLEBaVE3KdWMoJ~kU3jQSpjOKVr7AdLuJdUhr6RnnVv4XcRWAUKmYuFloEfUgjKuCJvgyxg0V~lSfQ-c68OqEbJcYwfCUkXv~KSFudN2iWL9f2xGxxY4Xaf~~xosrb9gJkFRAeT9bu7Acw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Trustees at the April 22 meeting reviewed technology proposals that would renew the district's connectivity agreement and fund cabling and hardware upgrades, with staff saying the work is intended to modernize campus wiring installed before the district rolled out large‑scale wireless device programs.

Staff presentation and scope: Doctor Hill (technology staff) described three related items: a five‑year Category 1 agreement (a lease for dark fiber connectivity), a Category 2 cabling project to replace older in‑building wiring, and associated hardware (switches and wireless access points). Hill said the Category 1 connectivity (leased fiber already in place) would lock pricing for five years and that Category 2 cabling and hardware spending is eligible for roughly 50% reimbursement through the federal E‑Rate program. \"The category 1 agreement is for 5 years, and that really protects school districts... The category 2 is a 5 year term,\" Hill said.

Costs, timing and savings: Hill and business staff described a multi‑year plan in which the district spreads capital investment over the E‑Rate funding window. A separate migration‑support agreement was described as a one‑time investment of about $19,000; staff said that investment would enable more efficient upgrades and projected an aggregate five‑year savings in the hundreds of thousands if the migration succeeds and salvage credits are realized. Hill said the cabling/hardware work could be completed by August of the current year, allowing the district to capture E‑Rate discounts for the five‑year term.

Federal funding risk: Board solicitor and others warned the E‑Rate program faces legal scrutiny. \"The E‑rate program is on thin ice,\" Mr. Fitzgerald said, noting that industry challenges have raised questions about the program's rulemaking path and that the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a decision this spring affecting the program's future. Staff and trustees nonetheless said that locking in contracts and completing work within the E‑Rate window would reduce the district's exposure if the program were altered.

Board questions and context: Trustees asked whether the district would lose Internet access if Category 1 connectivity were not renewed (staff said the district has existing connections but that Category 1 preserves favorable, locked‑in pricing for five years). Trustees also asked whether hardware being retired would be salvaged; staff said retired equipment would be auctioned or salvaged and that proceeds would return to district coffers. A Crown Castle lease was discussed as the vendor for the fiber lease; staff said the district already uses leased fiber in its network.

Next steps: The proposals were presented in committee and will be brought to the board for action on the advertised agenda. Staff said the projects are intended to keep infrastructure able to support modern instructional devices and digital curriculum and that the district is seeking to balance capital needs with available federal discounts and evolving legal risk.

","Trustees heard staff proposals to renew a five‑year E‑Rate category 1 connectivity lease and to fund category 2 cabling and hardware upgrades with 50% federal reimbursement; staff said work would modernize wiring installed before widespread wireless devices and that federal E‑Rate funding faces pending legal uncertainty.",{"_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},6264318,"Spring‑Ford board pauses vote on opening‑exercises policy after legal review; refers matter to policy committee",182,5167000,5349000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450&start=5167&end=5349","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3097353-4b1fc70aaab745b317190817a59c4450/thumbnail_5167000.jpg","/articles/6264318/Pennsylvania/SpringFord-board-pauses-vote-on-openingexercises-policy-after-legal-review-refers-matter-to-policy-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264318-270b8f7ac3b6591c5fc8f1fe4fd50ea2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770856213&Signature=aBa~jQ5RYBthUxhSMCOg8OVNIhqiOZhzIbudXgbWz6g~R11zhPeV8U3zOgKMKQ9zctEy3f~g~DjUaAp7X75DUJI6fdAUrY0WvgieC6~NexiZm2GffDHpUeT~638B7f89gjjwgkM~LVQoBJOrFcQvAghM3-Ktt4DdsW0zj7PpNbsHv0sGWcWbuBqe1rEhJwy43k7CvhQW7ajHIMC1qQGN~rId2MlffyIPGpgjb4nbZEbGgzKVUyGsHK3UOcPPHZ8z2Hrqvmh~DoLDj5QsEh~s6shrZtDS1BGF03gUpS7H~ELHjT2rjlfWEsem0D6xqxL8Xyo0jfBal~7hKjJAsFQl7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Spring‑Ford Area SD Board of School Directors on April 22 paused formal approval of a revision to the district's opening‑exercises policy after district counsel and staff presented legal research showing a portion of the relevant state school‑code language had been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

The issue surfaced after a community member questioned why certain lines had been removed from the draft policy. Board policy language under review concerned the pledge of allegiance, displaying the flag and a newly proposed \"moment of silence\" addition. The policy committee had recommended updates and the administration had placed the item on the agenda for first reading; following public questions and a solicitor review, trustees agreed to return the matter to the policy committee for further consideration.

Board discussion and legal context: Mrs. Goldsmith, chair of the policy committee, said the committee had reviewed policies and sought solicitor input; she and other trustees noted that some older policy language reflected statutory provisions enacted in the early 2000s and that case law since then had changed legal obligations. \"If we have this conversation in May, it doesn't mean that we have to go back to first and second read,\" Goldsmith said, describing options for the board to either approve an updated policy or rescind the older language.

Board counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, told trustees that the contested provision still appears in the Pennsylvania School Code but that a Third Circuit decision from 2004 had held that portion unconstitutional. He summarized the court's holding as finding the statutory provision to be impermissible viewpoint discrimination when it required parental notification or other sanctions for students who declined to recite the pledge. \"That section has been found by the Third Circuit to be unconstitutional,\" Fitzgerald said.

Superintendent staff and policy chair explained that the district's ESSA (state) report cards remain publicly available on the district website and that rescinding a duplicative policy would not remove legal obligations under state or federal law. \"If you dig a little deeper ... the law is what it is,\" Fitzgerald added. Policymakers repeatedly said the board must not include policy language that conflicts with controlling court decisions.

Public comment and concerns: Several community members raised questions. Roland Olsen, a resident, said the district should retain parental notification when a student declines to participate in the pledge and asked why other display language had been altered. \"I do not support the removal of parental notification when my child does not participate in the opening exercises,\" Olsen said during public comment. Board members responded that the policy committee will review those concerns and that the state ESSA report card remains posted online.

Board action and next steps: Trustees agreed to return the policy to the policy committee for additional review and to include solicitor guidance and public input. The policy committee is scheduled to meet May 12; the board indicated it could act on the policy in May after that committee review, either by approving the corrected language or rescinding the out‑of‑date policy without leaving district legal obligations unaddressed.

","Trustees removed a proposed revision to the district's opening‑exercises policy after staff and the solicitor said part of the Pennsylvania School Code language had been found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court; the board agreed to send the policy back to the policy committee for review and public discussion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Spring‑Ford Area SD board adopts proposed 2025‑26 budget amid rising health and commercial assessment costs

Spring‑Ford discusses E‑Rate, cabling and hardware upgrades; board told federal support may be uncertain

Spring‑Ford board pauses vote on opening‑exercises policy after legal review; refers matter to policy committee