The Springs School Board deliberated last week over a proposition for the May ballot that will ask voters to reauthorize the district’s repair reserve fund, but the phrasing of the proposal prompted questions from one resident and some clarification from the district’s business administrator.
At first blush, it seemed the proposition would ask permission to distribute $7.5 million into the repair reserve fund this year. This is not the case, as Sam Schneider, school business administrator, explained in a budget presentation, but even board members agreed that the suggested language for the proposition was confusing.
Essentially the repair reserve fund is a place for the district to put some of the extra money it may have when there are budget surpluses so that it can be used for future repair projects, thus lessening the blow to taxpayers when big things need to be fixed. It is a way for the district to avoid “peaks and valleys” in its budget and also to avoid needing to borrow for repair projects, Mr. Schneider explained to the board at a March 11 meeting.
The proposition seeks voters’ approval to continue putting money into a repair reserve fund from time to time, when there are surpluses, so that it can be built up to no more than $7.5 million. The board can choose a lower cap, Mr. Schneider said, but “$7.5 million is going to give you flexibility for a very long time.”
The district has a number of similar reserve funds, including one for compensating retiring employees for unused sick time. “Some years you fund them and some years you don’t,” Mr. Schneider said, “based on what the projections are for what you need.”
During a public comment section before Mr. Schneider’s presentation, David Buda, a resident, pointed out the school has had a reserve fund since 2007, and noted it now has a “fairly modest $100,000” in it.
“Why do we need a $7.5 million repair reserve fund, which allows the district every year to take any overbudgeted funds and simply push them into a reserve without any real accountability?” Mr. Buda asked. “Every dollar that goes into the repair reserve fund year after year is a dollar that is not returned to the public or the taxpayers,” he added later.
During his presentation later, Mr. Schneider explained that “There is no impact on taxes in the creation of this fund,” he said. “Every year, ensuring just like we did last year, we are going to put a resolution before you for your consideration to allow you to use excess money left over from the year to put into the fund for future use.”
“It’s not ‘we’re putting $7.5 million in in June,’ “ he said. “We’re giving ourselves plenty of ceiling space in this concept to work with for years to come.”
Nancy Carney, the superintendent, said that she had also questioned Mr. Schneider on the number, but once he had explained the concept, the long-term impact became more clear. She noted several projects that the school will have to undertake in the future including replacing boilers and facade work on the outside of the building.
The board elected to stay with Mr. Schneider’s recommended number; however, Kate Sarris, a board member, suggested editing the phrasing of the proposal itself so that it would be more clear for voters on the ballot in May. Together the board came up with the new language specifying that “the periodic appropriation of available funds from district fund balance or other available funds as described herein into the repair reserve fund” would be “up to a maximum of $7,500,000.”
The board approved the new language unanimously and it will appear on the ballot on May 20, alongside the budget and a proposition to enter into a new five-year tuition contract allowing Springs to send its students to East Hampton High School.
At this point, the board anticipates a 2025-26 budget of roughly $38.4 million that would not pierce the state-imposed limit on tax-levy increases. It has until April 8 to approve the budget it will take to voters on May 20.