BUTLER TWP — The Butler School Board is looking at options for eliminating a budget deficit of $6.9 million for the 2016-17 school year, including cutting some programming and technology upgrades.

The board’s finance committee Monday evening discussed the situation. The projected budget includes a property tax hike of 3 mills, sending the tax rate to 97.8 mills. That increase is the largest allowed by the state without the district applying for an exception.

The district’s average assessment value is roughly $17,800, so at 94.8 mills, the average property owner pays $1,696 per year. At 97.8 mills, that would rise $53 to $1,749, according to Deborah Brandstetter, director of business services.

In total, the tax increase would give the district an additional $1.3 million.

Next year’s budget projects $99 million in revenue but $106.4 million in expenditures, up from $100.7 million this school year.

An option presented by Brandstetter cuts spending and increases revenue to minimize the deficit to $3.4 million dollars. Under that plan, the district would not hire five new teachers, including another Latin teacher sought due to increased student demand. In total, that would save about $364,000 in salaries and benefits.

Other cuts included removing $20,000 set aside for staff development.

But board member Leland Clark pointed out that teachers already are unhappy with the amount of professional development opportunities they had. Superintendent Dale Lumley agreed that the district should be spending at least $220,000 on professional development.

That plan also had the options to not hire replacements for individuals retiring this school year, but Lumley stressed that the administration does not recommend that. Retirements include a science teacher at the intermediate level, a senior high school math teacher, a senior high school principal, two custodians, one grounds crew person and three maintenance workers.

Not replacing those positions would save about $614,000 in salaries and benefits.

“I can’t say anybody on that list isn’t important to have,” Lumley said. “I think all of those (positions) are important to fill, but you asked (Brandstetter) to come and make cuts, and we made cuts, but I think those are important.”

Brandstetter also stressed that some costs the district cannot change, such as pensions.

“There are certain things we can’t change,” she said.

Other changes discussed were cutting some programs, such as the Japanese program and JROTC, two changes Lumley said the administration did not recommend. Those positions were highlighted as potential cuts because they are not contract positions, he said.

By eliminating Japanese and JROTC, the district would save $78,000 and $235,000 respectively.

Another huge cost reduction included the elimination of the equipment and technology budget, reducing the deficit by $1.5 million. Of that total, $1.3 million comes from a plan to expand smart boards in kindergarten to third grade classrooms and expand wireless access networks.

However, the technology budget could be financed through state-issued bonds. If the bonds were for 15 years, the district would pay $113,000 toward the $6.7 million proposed debt service, which includes capital projects.

The plan also proposed cutting athletic and band uniform purchases, a combined total of $190,000. Not buying library books for elementary schools would save $21,000, and if the district did not reimburse for out-of-district travel, another $14,500 would be saved, according to Brandstetter’s numbers.

To increase revenue, the finance committee discussed raising the athletic activity fee from $60 to $75 per sport, which would increase revenue by $13,000. By raising the student parking fee from $75 to $100, the district would bring in an additional $11,000.

Board President Nina Teff stressed that these are simply options that are being discussed, and no final decisions have been made.

“Even if we go with the adjusted budget, that even is going to eat $3.5 million out of our fund balance,” Clark said. “We can’t tax our way out of this situation.”

In response to Clark’s comments, board member Neil Convery asked if having a large reserve fund is something the district should even have.

“You got to wrestle with the question, ‘Is it even appropriate for the school district to sit on $10 million when you’re going to ask for more money in taxes from the taxpayer,’” he said.

But board member Bill Halle said that it’s important for reserves to be kept for unforeseen circumstances, just like the previous state budget impasse.

“I would never recommend to any business not to have a certain percentage of money set aside,” Halle said.

At the end of this school year, the district will have a projected $9.4 million surplus. If it used that surplus for the $6.9 million deficit, there would be only an estimated $2.4 million in the reserve fund.

Clark asked for the administration’s recommendation on how to handle the deficit, which Lumley provided.

“There are minimal things that I think we can hold off on,” Lumley told the committee.

“I wouldn’t recommend eliminating any programs at this point. I would recommend using the fund balance, monitor our costs as (Brandstetter) does every year and try to narrow that gap. But I would use the fund balance to pay for many of the things that we need to have, like the technology, that are important.

“I like (Brandstetter’s) idea of financing the technology and the capital projects rather than putting up the $1.5 million for technology. But I don’t think we can forgo those things,” he said.

“Our goal is to be educating students and to be preparing students, and I think many of the things on the list are the things that we need to have to do that.

“Unfortunately, I think we’ve been put in a position where we do have to use some of our fund balance to pay down those costs.”

However, Halle stressed that cuts need to be considered.

“I don’t know how to scream loud enough that if we continue to go down the same trail and do things the same way that caused the problem, we’re never going to solve it,” Halle said.

“What we do know is that we’re in a community where we absolutely cannot tax our way out. We have a minimum amount of fund reserves that is not going to be replaced, and we can’t just continue to go into debt to cover that balance because that’s one of the biggest problems we have.

“We have to look at making cuts that are going to, over the next three years, get us to where we need to be.”

“What is the resistance to talking about cutting what we need to cut?” Halle asked.

Clark responded, “Because it hurts the students’ education.”

Teff said during the finance committee meeting that she would prefer not to make cuts to programs.

Brandstetter is going over the payroll, looking line by line at each employee to check salary and benefits. Options that are being discussed are using part-time employees to save on wages and benefits and looking into split shifts.

The finance committee has another meeting to discuss budget options for 5:30 p.m. April 21 at the Harriger Educational Services Center, 110 Campus Lane.

A special budget meeting for the school board is set for 6 p.m. May 2 at Harriger.