Finance staff outlines $10 million bond spending and tentative 2025–26 budget timeline for Springfield Township SD

A finance staff member for Springfield Township SD told the finance committee on Oct. 24 that the district used a just-under $10,000,000 bond issuance from a $410,000,000 plan to fund multiple capital projects and that work is underway on roofs, athletic fields and an ADA ramp.

“ We did a, just under $10,000,000, bond issuance, to fund the projects that you're seeing on the screen right now,” the staff member said, describing how the bonds were earmarked across several projects including a multi‑phase high‑school roof replacement and the middle‑school renovation that will go out to bid.

The staff member said phase 2 of the high‑school roof work is wrapping up but required extra punch‑list and cleanup work associated with the roofing contractor Jotun. For phase 3, the district plans to use a cooperative vendor‑selection approach with CHA (formerly Dewey) and warned that using different roofing vendors in separate phases had led to inconsistent results previously.

On athletics, the staff member said the track and field renovation was split into two phases: phase 1 — the rubberized track, goalposts and field‑hockey sodding — is complete, while phase 2 adds fencing, a high jump and shot put area plus ADA access and bleachers so the middle school can host meets in spring.

The Erdenheim ramp project is nearly complete, the staff member said, with only remaining railings to install to link upper and lower playgrounds and provide ADA access.

The largest project is the middle‑school renovation. The staff member said the district is finishing design, will solicit bids, expects to award contracts and begin construction around February–March, and plans for the project to wrap up in December 2026.

On financing, the staff member outlined a multi‑year borrowing strategy to limit the immediate budget impact of debt service: “These $10,000,000 per year borrowings are called bank qualified bonds, which give us lower interest rates, and better call features,” they said, and added that each $10 million borrowed increases annual budget pressure by roughly a little over $500,000.

The district plans to pace borrowings across calendar years rather than taking a larger single borrowing, the staff member said. They described the normal timeline for a borrowing cycle — begin in February, seek board approval in March, and settle in April or early May — and said staff requested a draw schedule from Doug Taylor to time the next borrowing so the district is not short when vendors need payment.

On budgeting, the staff member gave a high‑level schedule and principles for the 2025–26 budget. They said revenue forecasts rely on five‑year historical trends, state and county data and known grants; personnel costs (salaries and benefits) account for about 72%–78% of the district’s budget; and three employee groups have contracts expiring this year that will affect negotiations and budgeting.

The district has procured Forecast5 for five‑year forecasting and is working with Frontline to implement the model, the staff member said. A capital‑assessment plan under Doug Taylor will feed a five‑year capital plan with specific replacement dates and cost estimates for boilers and other facilities.

The staff member reviewed the Act 1 index and local aid measures, saying Springfield remains below the index historically and that the district’s MVPI aid ratio places it in the top third of state wealth measures. They added that, under current projections, the district is allowed a 4% tax increase for 2025–26 under the Act 1 index calculation.

Finally, the staff member laid out a tentative calendar: a Nov. 8 finance committee meeting to receive the audit; a Nov. 19 regular board meeting to present an accelerated budget opt‑out resolution (certifying the board will not raise taxes above the Act 1 index); a mid‑February finance meeting for PFM to preview 2025 borrowing; a first look at the budget around March 6; an April proposed‑final presentation; and a June 3 final‑approval target. The staff member noted the Pennsylvania Department of Education requires a 30‑day window between proposed‑final and final budget approvals and that the schedule may be adjusted to meet that requirement.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the committee meeting.