ROARING SPRING — In a 7-2 vote, the Spring Cove School Board denied about $222,000 in funding for the district’s 2025-26 capital projects, which included elementary school playground fencing, grab bars for handicap bathrooms and sealing asphalt at two Central High School parking lots.

The decision came following a lengthy discussion during a committee of the whole meeting Monday evening regarding the district’s budget and its projected deficit of nearly $2.4 million.

Board members Amy Acker-Knisely, Gretchen Bettwy, John Biddle, Misti Fisher, Andrea Moses, Kevin Smith and Linda Smith voted against funding the capital projects, while Chuck Gojmerac and Troy Wright voted in favor.

The sole capital project that will be included in the 2025-26 budget is the replacement of the Central High School roof for an estimated $2.7 million, as it was separately approved during the board’s March 17 meeting.

The discussion surrounding the capital project budget began when Moses asked if the project list were approved, could it still be changed “if we were to then look at the budget in May and decide that there needs to be some cuts.”

Superintendent Betsy Baker said they would “really need to say that now” because May would be “getting too late” because they’d already have the budget out for public approval at that point.

“This is what goes into that,” Baker said. “So that’s why we approved this, so we know this is going into that budget. If there’s something here you want cut, we need to know that now, not in May.”

Kevin Smith said he “personally” has a “problem with the fencing.” The 2025-26 capital projects budgeted $60,000 to install playground fencing at Martinsburg Elementary School and $23,000 to install first and second grade playground fencing at Spring Cove Elementary School, for an estimated total of $83,000.

Smith said he looked at the preliminary budget and saw that $5,400 was cut from the athletic budget.

“I’ve heard a lot of coaches saying that they’ve had to spend money out of their own pockets because they don’t have a budget,” Smith said. “We’re cutting their budget another $5,400, but we have $83,000 (for the fencing).”

Linda Smith pointed out that the district’s athletics is housed under student activities and has a proposed budget of $848,000.

Fisher said she guessed that Kevin Smith was saying “is that a want or a need” in regards to fencing.

The fencing was included on the list because it’s a safety concern for a variety of reasons, Baker said, including some students trying to escape from playgrounds.

“It’s imperative to address that safety need as soon as possible and this is a good year to do it because we allot $250,000 in our budget every year,” Baker said. “Oftentimes we go well over that ($250,000). This year, we’re below it.”

Baker again said to let them know if there was something the board wanted to be cut, to which Linda Smith said it was Baker’s job to tell the board what could be removed.

“We’ve already done the cuts to get it to this point,” Baker said. “This is what we recommend. We don’t have anything we’re recommending cutting.”

Linda Smith said the budget could be cut 10% or 15% “across the board.”

Baker explained that the district does projects on a rotation, like the sealing of parking lots, so areas are properly maintained.

“We spread it out across the budget from year to year so we don’t have multiple ones we have to do at once, but cost twice as much,” Baker said.

Upgrading classroom lighting to LED would save about $230 a month and painting window lintels, which are beams placed above windows to support the structural integrity of buildings, prevents them from rusting away.

When Moses asked again where other cuts could be made because “this roof project now is going to cost almost $3 million,” Baker said, “all of these things have been on the long-term plan.”

“None of these are things that we weren’t planning for and kicking them down the road just makes them more expensive the next year,” Baker said.

Moses said she wouldn’t cut the parking lot sealing if it was needed, but then would question the lighting and why they “couldn’t push that off.”

“You can push it off, it’ll just make next year more expensive,” Baker said.

After about 40 minutes of back-and-forth, the board voted against funding the projects.

Fisher then asked if the agenda item would be “coming back” and if the board would be able to vote on “what they’re cutting and what they’re not.”

Baker said it won’t.

“None of it’s getting spent?” Fisher asked. “We can’t separate anything out?”

Wright said that’s what they just voted on.

Following the meeting, when asked what would be done with the 2025-26 capital projects, Baker said they’d “take it down to next year.”

“Next year’s will be twice as high,” Baker said. “We’ll have this year’s projects and next year’s projects on next year’s budget.”

Wright agreed about the added expense, citing inflation.

“There could also be damage from not maintaining something,” Wright said.

When questioned about student safety, Acker-Knisely said she would look into the use of snow fencing as a temporary alternative for the elementary school playgrounds.

Mirror Staff Writer Rachel Foor is at 814-946-7458.