BASD unanimously adopted its proposed budget May 11 in a session accessible to the public via Zoom. Seven board members (all but Winston Alozie and Craig Neiman) were present. Projected expenditures for 2020-21 are $301,787,268, and expected revenues are $295,125,047. The district has two options (or some combination thereof) to make up the shortfall of $6,662,221: raising taxes and dipping into its fund balance.

Board President Mike Faccinetto said both federal and state contributions to the district are still “up in the air.” Superintendent Dr. Joseph Roy and board member Dr. Kim Shively both noted the important symbolism of not raising taxes in a difficult environment, and the importance of public support for the district, with Roy advising the board not to raise taxes and Shively indicating that although she’d prefer not to, she’d consider it. Final budget adoption is scheduled for June 15. The approval of the budget tonight gives the public 30 days to communicate their thoughts to the board.

The board also held a combined committee meeting to discuss curriculum, facilities, finance, and human resources concerns to be voted on at the May 18 meeting.

A major curriculum point of discussion was the submission of a grant application for federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds in the amount of $3,218,394. As discussed at the April 27 meeting, these funds are BASD’s share of federal monies to be disbursed to the state Department of Education, and are meant to help school districts pay for costs incurred during the coronavirus-related school shutdown. However, there is still quite a bit of uncertainty as to how much of this money the district will actually see. One question is whether the state will pass the money on to BASD without changing the state contribution to the district, or offset it by reducing the state’s Basic Education Funding to BASD.

Even if the state passes the entire grant amount to the district without reducing its own contribution, BASD is required to share the money according to yet-to-be-determined factors with private, parochial, and charter schools. (Guidance from the federal Department of Education is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/FAQs-Equitable-Services.pdf with relevant information particularly in the answers to question 10.)

“The CARES funding can play a critical role, but a big question is what percentage of that we have to distribute to non-public schools,” Roy cautioned. “The federal Department of Education has put out guidance saying that the traditional Title I funding formula should not be used – that formula is based on the number of poverty-level students a non-public school has.” Roy further explained, “The Trump administration’s guidance […] says that a school’s total enrollment should be used, regardless of how many low-income students are enrolled. If we used the Title I formula for the CARES funds, what we would equitably distribute to non-public schools would be $57,600, based on their low-income population. If we used the approach that [federal] Secretary [of Education Betsy] DeVos says we should use, we would distribute $544,000 to non-public schools. The state Secretary of Education has sent a letter to the federal Department of Education protesting this guidance. That’s a good example of some of the question marks that are hanging out there for us.”

The finance committee item generating the most discussion was the summer food service program for children from low-income families. Roy said, “there’s a real question as to how many of these community-based sites will be able to serve. If the city makes the decision not to run the playground program, then we’re going to lose a lot of meal sites for the summer, so we are working with our community partners to find out, if that does happen, what other community-based organizations might be able to step up and take that role. We provide the meals; the community provides the sites of distribution. The summer program, under normal circumstances, requires that you sit and eat at the site – they may permit the grab-and-go process that we’re using now, but we just don’t know.”

HR points of interest were the proposed reappointment of King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC, as the district’s solicitor for a three-year term; a renewal of the district’s agreement with Substitute Teacher Services (STS) for three years; and the appointment of pediatrician Dr. Anita Shah to replace Dr. Bonnie Coyle, who has resigned her position as BASD medical director.

Faccinetto noted that an advantage of King, Spry is the firm’s deep experience with education law, which BASD does not have to seek in Harrisburg or Philadelphia, where service rates would likely be higher. Roy agreed, saying King, Spry has gotten to know all the key players in the Lehigh Valley education law scene, and has developed a good working relationship with the district and the board.

CHRO Russ Giordano informed the board that STS gave the district a discount for being a flagship customer in the early years of the relationship – which began in 2014 – and that the current proposal includes a slight increase over this discounted rate. Giordano noted that STS recently hired a full-time recruiting manager who has visited the district at least three times for job fairs, taking a much more proactive approach than in prior years.

Questions from the public included an inquiry about “border-hopping,” in which families improperly register a student as residing in BASD. Faccinetto responded that Giordano has been successful in putting a stop to border-hopping by making the use of a private investigator, a practice that will continue.

A parent who has repeatedly aired this concern asked once again whether BASD would tighten its vaccine requirements, and Faccinetto explained that vaccination policy is a state-level issue over which the district does not have control.

In the open forum portion of the meeting, Faccinetto shared information from Gober on different tax increase scenarios. Even if the district does not increase the millage, there will be a mandatory rebalancing of contributions between Lehigh and Northampton Counties, which will increase Lehigh County taxes by an average of $88 per household. Gober explained that Section 672 of the Pa. School Code dictates that as the State Tax Equalization Board market values change, the relative weights of the contributions of the two counties are changed to rebalance them.

If BASD increases the millage by 0.5 percent, the average household would pay an additional $16.58 (Northampton County) or $99.90 (Lehigh County). A 1 percent increase would cost the average Northampton County homeowner $34.38 more than last year, and the average Lehigh County homeowner $113.97; the figures for a 1.5 percent increase are $51.58 for Northampton County and $126.63 for Lehigh County.

Faccinetto said earned income tax revenue will be likely be lower, given the extended closures of many local businesses, and said he believed it would be prudent to consider a 1 percent increase. In a quick poll of the board, Dr. Karen Beck Pooley, Faccinetto, Shannon Patrick, Dr. Kim Shively, and Emily Schenkel voiced support for considering a tax increase for next year; Dr. Dean Donaher and Angela Sinkler stated a preference for no increase, based on current economic conditions, with the deficit to be made up entirely from the fund balance.