Elementary Feasibility Study FAQ - Updated Feb 21, 2024

 

Elementary Feasibility Study FAQ



February 21, 2024 Update: 

This update includes responses to questions posed by a group from Jackson Township. *Questions #5 & #6 have been updated based on additional information received from the PTO.

 

  1. Why was closing the Jackson Elementary School not an issue in 2022 but now it has become an urgent pursuit in 2023?

For the 23-24 school year, we had our first structural deficit in our General Fund Budget.  Three things converged simultaneously.  Obviously, the faulty appraisal of CPV from the County’s contractor has been well-documented.  In addition to that loss of over $800k in annual revenue, our cyber charter tuition bills have skyrocketed (along with those of our neighboring districts). Ten years ago, our cyber charter costs were less than $100k.  They are now in excess of $700k.  The third element is the “fiscal cliff” that all PA school districts are facing after the end of the 23-24 school year.  This is a result of the end of the COVID-relief funds through the Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief fund (ESSER) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP).  The COVID stimulus money was to be used by school districts in order to supplement (and not supplant) programs.  Districts were encouraged to begin new programs.  However, the funding was not extended after this current school year.   In fact, many of our neighboring districts  are projecting a deficit for 24-25 for the same reasons (minus the power plant reassessment obviously).  Also, we have seen a substantial increase in our costs of sending students to Admiral Peary Area Vo-Tech because that institution is seeing the same necessary cost increases as well. It costs Central Cambria $700k to educate 130 of our high school students at the Career and Tech Center (CTC) for ½ of their day in grades 10-12.  We also believe that is money well spent as there is a noted skills gap and well-documented applicant shortage in fields that do not require a four-year degree.  As far as why the timing is important, we have several teachers retiring at the end of this current school year.  By restructuring now, the District would not have to replace those teachers and would be able to balance the budget.  However, if we “kick the can down the road” and replace all retiring teachers, we would risk depleting our reserve funds in approximately three years.  If that were to occur, the district would then be required to furlough staff.  Once districts furlough teachers, it becomes very difficult for them to recruit and retain the best educators, thereby harming students and taxpayers through decreased academic achievement and property values. 

  1. What started the discussion about closing the school, especially closing it quickly?

Nothing has been “shrouded in mystery.” The feasibility study was approved at a public meeting, and this FAQ is currently 28 printed pages (as of 2/21/24). The Board has scheduled a public hearing of citizens even though that is not required for a school reconfiguration vote. Having a satellite elementary school in 2023 is nearly an anomaly in our four county region that makes up our Intermediate Unit (IU08) of Cambria, Blair, Somerset, and Bedford Counties.  There are several reasons for this, but the largest factor is declining enrollment.  There has been no state funding whatsoever for school building expenses such as remodeling, new roofs, etc… since 2010.  Those expenses have come out of district budgets. State grants, including ones for safety, are allotted based on student enrollment numbers–and not on the total number of buildings.  Increased costs of transportation and personnel (mainly driven by mandatory pension rate increases) have increased the downsizing of the number of school buildings operated by school districts.  Just a few weeks ago, Everett Area School District announced the closure of its last satellite elementary school (Breezewood).  Everett Area is three times as large as Central Cambria geographically, yet all students in grades K-5 will now be educated in their larger elementary school in the town of Everett.  Geographically large Bedford County will have no satellite elementary schools at the start of the 24-25 school year.  Indiana Area School District has scheduled a Section 780 Hearing to discuss the closing of its Horace Mann Elementary.  Safety is another factor in these decisions also.  As districts increase their number of security personnel, they seek to have fewer buildings in order to ensure coverage.  

  1. Was closing the school something that the board of directors has been considering for a while?

It has been discussed by prior school boards and at least the prior three superintendents.  As it states in the FAQ, nearly every other district in Cambria County has closed their satellite elementary schools in the recent past for many of the same reasons that the current board is considering a reconfiguration of our grade levels.  Conemaugh Valley and Greater Johnstown were the last two local school districts.  However, the situation at Greater Johnstown was a bit different.  They had actually conducted a feasibility study to look at a renovation project in order to create an engineering academy at what was then their middle school.  However, it was determined that the building was in far worse condition than anticipated.  Therefore, there are no real parallels to their reconfiguration.  Forest Hills recently reconfigured their district and closed their separate middle school. Penn Cambria is conducting a feasibility study to determine whether the district should consolidate from five buildings down to three.  Central Cambria is currently the only school district in Cambria County that still has students of the same grade levels spread across multiple buildings. (All students in Kindergarten at Penn Cambria attend the same building. The same is true for grades, four, five, etc.…). Northern Cambria School District is looking to consolidate from three buildings to two.

 

  1. If the school district has not had deficit spending, why are you $3.7 million in debt to CPV and that amount was spent on personnel salaries? [If you spent more on salaries than you actually should have had on hand, then you had an apparent deficit. Also, the 2021 financial audit indicated deficit spending from 2018 through 2021]

The 2021 audit by our contracted auditor is not referring to a deficit in the General Fund Budget.  Our GFBs are nearly always balanced.  However, since 2018, we have had several capital expenditures which utilized both our built-up capital reserve funds as well as the bond fund from 2019. (We got an historically low interest rate at .25%). As it states in our FAQ, the same auditor recommended to the Board during his presentation at our public meeting in April of 2018 that the board should consider making capital improvements and spending down the reserves sooner rather than later.  The rationale was that having too much sitting in reserve would likely trigger the state to reduce Central Cambria’s portion of state funding.  The district had not raised millage rates in several years and had been building its capital reserve.  The state calculates “local effort” when apportioning state funding.  Therefore, it was likely that Central Cambria would be penalized with a lesser slice of the state pie for being fiscally responsible.  The timeline of capital expenditures is documented in the FAQ along with contemporaneous media articles. Obviously, if a district is conducting capital improvements utilizing a capital reserve and bond account, there will technically be a deficit.  However, this year (23-24) is the first structural deficit in our GFB for the reasons listed under question #1.

As far as “personnel salaries,” 70% of our budget goes to salary and benefits.  We have downsized through attrition whenever possible.  Since 2020, we have eliminated two administrative positions (Technology Director and Student Information Coordinator).  We replaced those two positions with a new K-12 Assistant Principal (John Strittmatter), and his primary role is that of being our in-house cyber school principal as that saves the district and taxpayers a significant amount of money.  The more students who choose our cyber schooling over one of the 14 state cyber charter schools, the district taxpayers save on tuition going out to those schools.  For example, we currently have nearly the same number of students in our cyber program (40) as we have going to one of the outside cyber charter schools.  Our total cost to educate the 40 students in our in-house cyber school (including the K-12 Assistant Principal’s salary and the cyber curriculum) is approximately 29% of the cost of the $700k in tuition payments that we are sending to the cyber charter schools, nearly all of which rank at the bottom according to standardized assessment scores. 

We have also downsized our teaching staff whenever it has been possible and necessary.  Because our enrollment has declined, we have been able to reduce a high school biology teaching position, special education position, and a math teaching position in the last few years through attrition.  (We have reduced staff at the high school level while still offering more elective classes such as dual enrollment and AP than any local district).

With grant funding from the American Rescue Plan and the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) fund (COVID-era stimulus), we had been able to retain staffing levels that would have otherwise been reduced through attrition.  (Dr. Murin presented our ESSER expenditures publicly at a Board Meeting). However, that funding has not been continued after this school year. 

The challenge is that we are most over-staffed at the elementary school level because we have two buildings with students in all six grade levels from K-5.  As it states in the FAQ, if there were only one elementary school, it would save over $1M in salary and benefits without increasing class sizes to anything beyond the state average at any grade level.  

  1. Why were the two Parent Teacher Organizations suddenly combined without discussion by the parents?

It was discussed by and with the parents, especially at Jackson Elementary.  Without merging, the PTO at JES had limited capacity to fundraise for the students at Jackson Elementary.

  1. Were the two PTO groups combined in anticipation of possibly closing Jackson Elementary School?

No, see answer above.  They merged out of necessity. 

  1. Was the hiring of an Assistant Principle (sic) to serve at both elementary schools, an action in anticipation of possibly closing Jackson Elementary School?

No, the plan of having Dr. Mesoras running both buildings as the head principal was an effort to get some consistency for the teachers and students at Jackson Elementary School.  Since Dr. Murin was promoted after serving as Jackson’s principal for 11 years, there had been multiple principals there for short periods of time (Strittmatter, Long, Domonkos).  Dr. Mesoras has been the principal at Cambria Elementary for 11 years herself, and she voiced a desire to lead both buildings in order to give the students consistency as she does not plan to change positions until her retirement in several years.  

The nature of school administration is sometimes such that principals are encouraged to take on progressively more responsibility as their careers progress.  The Board felt that Dr. Mesoras along with an assistant principal (Mrs. Niebauer) would provide that consistency, for even if Mrs. Niebauer would transition to a head principal in another building at some point, Dr. Mesoras would still remain in charge.

  1. Why wasn’t the money that was raised by Jackson Township residents used to build a playground at the Jackson Elementary School? 

It certainly can be.  It is the playground committee’s and PTO’s money, and it is waiting for action.   Once the feasibility study was contracted, the board felt it was prudent to advise the parties to wait until the results are presented before breaking ground on any playground project.  However, it is clear at this point that there will not be and cannot be a recommendation to close Jackson Elementary completely for the 24-25 school year.  (There would not be time to meet the Section 780 public hearing requirement.  The public hearing of citizens at the end of April is not a Section 780 Hearing.  Although such a hearing of citizens is not required for a reconfiguration vote, Board President Dr. Thomas Woods believes that the hearing would be beneficial for the board’s vote.)

  1. if you decide to not build a playground at the Jackson Elementary School, will the money be returned to the organizations that donated the majority of the money?

Yes, if the Board votes to reconfigure the elementary schools so that Jackson Elementary would remain open for Jackson Township students in grades K-2 as was proposed by one of our board members, it would be wise for the PTO and playground committee to give the organizations the option of having their money returned or allowing their contribution to go toward constructing a playground for grades K-2–and community use after school and during the summer. Let the donors choose.  Also, Dr. Murin has applied for grants for which we are still awaiting decisions in order to construct community use playgrounds at both Jackson Elementary and an additional playground for older students at Cambria Elementary.  The proposed playgrounds would include pavilions with public wifi access for parents to utilize in order to complete work while their children are playing. 

  1. In consideration of closing the Jackson Elementary School, has the only course of action considered is funding a feasibility study to determine the most efficient use of buildings?

No, the board developed an ad hoc committee a few years ago to look at two major issues:  a proposed common start time (similar to Cambria Heights) as well as the possibility of operating two elementary buildings with separate grade level bands (similar to Penn Cambria).  The committee presented its findings at a public board meeting at which the group determined that those moves were not prudent based on transportation costs and other limitations.   Having a common start time would require more buses and more bus routes.   With the shortage of drivers, it was determined that such a move would only exacerbate the need for routes to be covered by substitute and temporary drivers, clearly causing safety concerns.  The group also looked at the possibility of having one elementary building house all district students in grades kindergarten through second grade and the other in grades 3-5 such as CES containing K-2 and JES containing 3-5 or vice versa (similar to Penn Cambria).  Although such a plan would give the district the ability to set more even class sizes and had the potential to save revenue by eliminating redundant staffing, it was determined that much of that cost savings would be eaten up by increased transportation costs, and the same driver shortage problems of the common start time proposal would have remained.

  1. Has the board of directors considered the economic effects on Jackson Township and how closing the school would be a disincentive to drawing young families to Jackson Township, deterring businesses from locating there, possibly causing sewage and water rates to increase, and decreasing property values?

Property values are high in the Central Cambria School District because of the quality of education that students receive in the Central Cambria School District.  Seven years ago, our achievement metrics were average within the County.  Now, we are just behind Richland and are looking to overtake them for the top district in the County based on many of those measures.  That won’t change.  The improvement is a result of the investments that our board has made, especially in our teachers through professional development and collaboration.  Whether students from Jackson Township in grades 3-5 are educated in a building in the Township or if they are educated 7 miles away as the students in grades 6-12 currently are, they will still receive the same high quality education.  In fact, they would have more access to resources.  Young families seek out homes in quality school districts.  They will continue to seek Central Cambria.  There is actually a greater risk of having our district become less attractive if we choose to continue to operate inefficiently.  By either raising taxes significantly or eliminating programs such as access to arts, extracurriculars, or adding barriers to access to admission to Admiral Peary Area Vo-tech, we would be harming ourselves and our students.  There is a reason why every other school district has chosen to consolidate their elementary schools whenever necessary.  We are not unique in that regard.  We just had been fortunate with additional revenue from CPV that allowed us to delay difficult decisions. By keeping Jackson Elementary open for students in K-2 and expanding access to pre-K (if possible), our Board is thinking outside the box for middle ground solutions and should be commended.  It would be much easier to afford to operate very small class sizes in grades K-2 than it would be to continue to operate classes of 13 or 14 in all six grade levels (K-5).

  1. Has any consideration been given to the possibility that having the most efficient use of district facilities may not be in the best interest of the communities?

The Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to look after the best interests of the district’s students and taxpayers across the entire school district.  We firmly believe that the students’ educational experience would improve with any suggested reconfigurations.  Whenever all teachers of the same grade level are under one roof, it facilitates collaboration.  Not only is it economically wise, it would also improve the quality of instruction. As stated in the FAQ, we have also heard from our middle school staff, especially our counselors, how difficult it is for students to make new friends during adolescence as compared to earlier.  Middle school is the most challenging time in many kids’ lives.  A major benefit of reconfiguring so that all students are together in grades 3-5 would be reducing peer conflicts later.  

  1. Has it been determined what increase in taxes would really be required to keep the Jackson Elementary School open and what that would actually look like to the average household?

Again, keeping Jackson open for grades K-5 costs an additional $1M+ per year.  This is outlined in the FAQ, but a majority is a result of redundant staffing of services.  The utilities account for about 10% of that cost.  The annual electric bill has been around $30k, and the building has used approximately $50k in heating oil annually over the last several years.  To determine the additional cost to the average homeowner in the entire district (Jackson Township, Cambria Township, and Ebensburg Borough), you would just need to know the assessed value of your property and multiply that number by the proposed millage rate.  Our current millage rate is 55.25.  Obviously, the higher the assessed value, the larger the impact of a millage increase.  A Mill of taxes raises approximately $165k in revenue for the school district, and at current assessed values, each Mill increased equals approximately $15 on the average tax bill.  $1M in revenue, then,  would require just over 6 Mills or around a $75 increase in the average annual property tax bill.  Because of Act 1 of 2006, school districts can only increase taxes up to the Act 1 Index under normal circumstances (can be overridden by referendum, etc…).  This year, that is roughly 3.8 Mills, so a 6 Mill increase would take multiple years to accomplish.  If the Board were to opt to reconfigure the elementary schools so that all students would be together for grades 3-5 (as was proposed by a board member), only a one-time millage increase would be necessary if that plan would be determined to be possible through the feasibility study results. 

  1. If the Jackson Elementary School is closed, is there already an idea of Vo-Tech using the building?

No, I believe that this was misconstrued based on a conversation at a PTO meeting.  The day after our feasibility study was board approved (11/13/23), the superintendent received a phone call from one of the Pre-K providers looking to rent space should it become available.  The superintendent did not initiate this conversation.  This led to the discussion of Admiral Peary Vo-Tech because the school currently runs an early childhood program out of the annex building (at Admiral Peary), and two separate Pre-K providers currently rent space from the CTC (Career and Tech Center). The District is not seeking to “rent out” anything.  We are not in the real estate business, and our administrators don’t work on commission.  If we are able to expand our students’ and families’ access to quality Pre-K and/or childcare as we right-size, that would be for the best interest of our school community. 

  1. How many employees did the district have in 2017 compared to 2023? Can that be broken down by administration, teachers/faculty, and para-professionals?

There are fewer in each category.  Paraprofessional staffing, however, is largely dependent upon the level of special needs our students come to us with.  In general, we have been seeing a higher percentage of students with the most severe disabilities–even as our overall enrollment has decreased.  Our administrative staff has downsized, and we just recently eliminated another administrative position, unfortunately, stemming from the death of our long-time business manager in late December.  We have decreased the number of teachers at our middle and high school through attrition as our enrollment numbers have decreased, but we have been unable to make those adjustments at the elementary level because we continue to operate two buildings at all grade levels from Kindergarten through grade 5. 

  1. Has the district done anything to mitigate the impact of a declining enrollment in the district prior to now?

We can control a lot of things, but birth rates aren’t one of them.  We have to be able to reduce staff numbers with fewer student numbers.  70% of our budget is personnel costs (salaries and benefits).  The vast majority of the remaining 30% is either fixed costs or pass through funds.  Therefore, the only way to reduce expenditures is by reducing the number of employees. Having two elementary schools that operate from K-5 make that efficiency nearly impossible.  We have responded to the outrageous increase in cyber charter tuition by starting our own in-house cyber program as an option for our students and assigning an administrator as the principal of that program, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

  1. What has been the enrollment of the school from 2017 to 2023?

It is listed below.  The PDE projections have been very accurate.  Unfortunately, the decline is projected to speed up over the next decade based on live birth rates.  The reality is that our best case scenario would be to slow down the decline unless a new major development with several dozen new homes moves into the district. 

District Enrollment

2012-13

1,715

   

2013-14

1,693

   

2014-15

1,667

   

2015-16

1,699

   

2016-17

1,627

   

2017-18

1,647

   

2018-19

1,612

   

2019-20

1,577

   

2020-21

1,574

   

2021-22

1,597

   

2022-23

1,601

   

2023-24

1,532

   
       

11 Yr Decline

11.95%

   

 

Historical Elementary Enrollment Numbers

 

Jackson

Cambria

Combined (K-5)

19-20

219

461

680

20-21

189

476

665

21-22

196

458

654

22-23

208

452

660

23-24

202

431

633

       

4 yr Decline

8.42%

6.96%

7.42%

District Cost Increases

 

Central Cambria Cyber Charter Tuition Payment Costs

2019-20

Actual

$301,554.00

 

2020-21

Actual

$502,151.00

 

2021-22

Actual

$589,150.00

 

2022-23

Actual

$714,472.00

 

2023-24

Budgeted

$595,000.00

$533,173 Actual through 2/8/24

(Will be Significantly over Budget) We Have No Control over These Costs.

2023-24

Actual

$700,610.50

(Estimate) based on current known enrollment (by Invoices)

2024-25

Proposed

$695,000.00

 
       

5 Yr Increase

130.47%

 

 

Employee Pension Costs (State reimburses ½)

PSERS (Public School Employees Retirement System) Employer Contribution Rate Projection

Year

Percentage

District Total

   

12/13

12.36%

$1,054,599

   

13/14

16.93%

$1,423,811

   

14/15

21.40%

$1,900,799

   

15/16

25.84%

$2,303,272

   

16/17

30.03%

$2,805,872

   

17/18

32.57%

$2,965,496

   

18/19

33.43%

$3,137,051

   

19/20

34.29%

$3,350,371

   

20/21

34.51%

$3,492,774

   

21/22

34.94%

$3,625,720

   

22/23

35.26%

$3,621,511

   

23/24

34.00%

$3,642,918

   

24/25

33.90%

$3,713,461

   
         

12 Year Increase

252.12%

   





Millage Rates of Admiral Peary Area Vo-Tech Sending Districts Since 2012

 

School District

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Mill Increase

Since 2012

% Increase

Since 2012

Blacklick Valley

37.96

43.32

44.7

45.99

47.64

47.64

48.64

48.64

50.58

50.58

53.21

53.21

 

15.25

40.17%

Cambria Heights

57

57

58

58

59

61

63

65

67

67

67

67

 

10

17.54%

Central Cambria

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

54.25

55.25

 

1

1.84%

Conemaugh Valley

57.7

57.7

57.7

57.7

57.7

57.7

59.78

59.78

59.78

59.78

59.78

59.78

 

2.08

3.60%

Northern Cambria

47

47

50.16

51.61

51.61

51.61

53.45

55

55

55

57.5

60

 

13

27.66%

Penn Cambria

51.25

51.25

52.82

52.82

54.63

54.63

55.14

55.14

55.14

57.51

57.51

60.85

 

9.6

18.73%

Portage Area

47.5

47.5

48.5

48.5

48.5

48.5

50.2

50.2

52

52

53.79

53.79

 

6.29

13.24%

                         

AVG

8.17

17.54%

                               

Inflation rate during the period of 2012 - 2023 was 32.7% according to the Consumer Price Index.

* CCSD Board of Directors Eliminated the Per-Capita Tax on District Residents in February of 2021.

Admiral Peary Area Vo-Tech Consortium District Millage Rates Since 2012



February 5, 2024 Update

 

Represenative from the Draw Collective updated members of the Central Cambria administration today in regards to the progress of the Elementary Feasibility Study.  Draw reps stated their plan is to present their findings to the CCSD Board of Directors and to the public during the April 8th meeting of the CCSD Board of Directors.  That meeting will take place in the Central Cambria High School Cafeteria at 7:00 p.m. on 4/8/24.  Therefore, there will be no board action regarding the issue at either the February or March meetings of the CCSD Board of Directors.  



  • Will Jackson Elementary be closing for the 2024-2025 school year?
    • That is extremely unlikely at this point.  The reps from Draw indicated that their recommendations would likely be focused on short-term and long-term options for the Board to consider.  For the short-term option, their focus will be whether integrating all students in grades 3 through 5 at Cambria Elementary would be possible for the 2024-2025 school year.  

 

  • Does this mean that students from Jackson Township in grades 3 through 5 will be attending Cambria Elementary next year.
    • First, the CCSD Board needs to be certain that such a reconfiguration is possible (through the feasibility study).  If that is the recommendation from the study based on the April 8th presentation, the Board would likely vote on that matter at its May 13, 2024 meeting.  

 

  • How will Central Cambria’s business manager develop a 24-25 budget before a reconfiguratin vote?
    • Our business manager will likely present two separate proposed budgets for the Board to consider.  The first option would be a status quo budget in which both Jackson Elementary and Cambria Elementary Schools would continue to educate students in grades K-5 separately, and all retiring teachers would be replaced with newly hired teachers.  Because of the increase in cyber charter school tuition costs (budgeting $900k) and the loss of revenue from the recent commercial tax appeal, a status quo budget would likely necessitate tax increases up to the Act 1 Index for several consecutive years in order to compensate for the lost revenue and would contain a large deficit, risking depletion of budgetary reserve.  (Act 1 of 2006 limits annual local tax increases for school districts based on inflationary measures.)    A second option would include the cost reductions from integrating grades 3-5 (over $500k annual savings) and additional reductions in administrative and clerical personnel costs through attrition (not replacing individuals who retire).  With the potential for nearly $1M in reduced expenditures, the second option budget would likely require only a small one-time inflationary increase in order to balance the budget immediately.  Again, the Board will consider these options at their May 13th meeting.  The final budget approval would then occur at their June 10, 2024 meeting. 




January 5, 2024 Update

FAQ Update 1/5/24

 

  • Why would the Board have approved of projects like the athletic facility upgrades when there was the potential for declining enrollment and/or potential elementary school reconfiguration in the near future?
    • This is an interesting question that we have received a few times and have seen the timeline being listed incorrectly online.  It is important to note that when the major renovation projects that were discussed throughout 2018 and 2019 and were approved in January of 2020, CPV Fairview was not even in taxation, and the District had no guess of how much revenue would be generated by the new power plant.  Its existence didn’t factor into any of the decisions.  In fact, for the prior decade, the District had been building a reserve fund in order to make capital improvements.  In April of 2018, our auditor in his presentation during the public board meeting, made the recommendation to the board that they begin considering what improvements are necessary and to begin completing those projects in the very near future.  Basically, the concern was that the district would be penalized by the state for not spending the saved revenue on capital improvements quickly enough and could risk the state reducing the funding allocated to the district as a result.  The Board and administration held several meetings, sent surveys, discussed needs with all stakeholders, including students to prioritize the needs.   

 

  • Some folks are also conflating spending on multi-generation capital improvements with spending money to subsidize inefficient operations rather than right-size the way any successful business would do.    Below is a timeline of both the major capital projects of the last several years as well as a brief timeline of the CPV taxation issue.  



Timeline of Central Cambria Capital Projects 



  • April 9, 2018 – During the Public Board Meeting, the auditor made a recommendation to the board to consider fulfilling capital improvements it had been saving for in order to mitigate against a state funding reduction because of the high percentage of budgetary reserve to annual budget.

 

  • May 7, 2018 – CCSD Board approves bids on Jackson Elementary School Secure Entrance construction
    • Project was based on recommendations from Pennsylvania State Police safety audit
    • Eckles Architecture and Engineering was previously selected after Request for Qualifications sent, interviews conducted.

 

  • August 13, 2018 – CCSD Board approves bids for Central Cambria High School Exterior Masonry Renovation

 

  • August 22, 2018 – CCSD Board Public Board Meeting, Board approves Tricon Building Services, LLC, to complete roof evaluations for all flat roof surfaces at Central Cambria High School, Cambria Elementary School, and Jackson Elementary School.
    • The results determined the remaining lifespans of the roofs and ranked in order of level of urgency of replacement.  The analysis determined that the CCHS Gymnasium roof and Cambria Elementary’s complete roof needed immediate replacement followed by the remaining roofs at CCHS within a few years.   CCMS and Jackson Elementary roofs are determined to be in far better condition than CES and CCHS.



 

  • January - October 2019 - Ad hoc committee formed with school board and community members. Several surveys were conducted and public meetings to gather input were held. 

 

  • April 4, 2019 – Public Meeting of CCSD Board of Directors.  Mid-State Roofing’s competitive bid accepted for replacement of roof at Cambria Elementary.  Work begins immediately.

 

  • November 4, 2019 - Public Board Meeting presentations made by Eckles Architecture and Engineering, FieldTurf, ELA Sport, The Efficiency Network
    • Board and Public Discussion
    • December Meeting - More Board and Public Discussions were held

 

  • January 7, 2020 - Public Board Meeting- Board votes to approve capital projects for comprehensive district-wide upgrades.
    • Energy Savings Project through the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act (GESA)
      • LED Lighting district-wide
      • Installation of new efficient air source heat pumps with air conditioning in each and every classroom in all buildings
      • Building envelope and insulation upgrades to mitigate against energy loss
      • Board Previously Approved Feasibility Study (Investment Grade Energy Audit) to be conducted in September 2019 to determine the necessity of project and cost/benefit analysis at a public board meeting.
    • Carpeting replaced in all district hallways and classrooms with more sanitary vinyl tile
    • Outdoor athletic facility upgrades based on recommendation of Ad Hoc committee
    • New student desks and chairs in all classrooms to replace the aging and breaking 1970s one piece desks.
    • New upper level bleachers in HS gymnasium to replace dangerous flimsy wooden set
    • New Maintenance Building to house District snow removal equipment and vehicles (Bids approved at Public Board Meeting, October 2019)
    • https://www.tribdem.com/news/central-cambria-poised-to-launch-19-million-in-projects/article_e34e5466-31cd-11ea-b722-271182a7349f.html

 

  • September 20, 2021 – Public Board Meeting, CCSD Board of Directors approves bids to renovate high school technology education classrooms and renovate high school bathrooms.  (Work is paid through grant funding– COVID Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief [ESSER] funds)

 

  • July 11, 2022 – Public Board Meeting – Mid-State Roofing approved to replace the remainder of the high school roof (roof over gymnasium previously replaced out of necessity).   



Timeline of CPV Fairview Tax Assessment Issue



  • January - August 2020,  Cambria County conducted assessment of CPV Fairview property after all construction was completed.
    • County contracted with Resource Technologies Corporation to conduct the assessment.
      • Resource Technologies Corporation subcontracted the New Hampshire-based appraiser
      • Valued property at roughly $1B
        • It is important to note that $1B is the reported amount of the actual cost of the power plant as cited by CPV in multiple media reports.

 

  • September 2021: The County and School District are made aware that CPV Fairview had filed an appeal with the Cambria County Board of Assessment & Appeals
    • CCSD District Business Manager immediately places 25% of all tax revenue collected from CPV Fairview into a separate escrow account as required by law.
    • District was represented by Beard Legal during the October 15, 2021 meeting of the Board of Assessment & Appeals.

 

  • March 2022: District hires Weiss, Burkhardt, & Kramer, LLC as special counsel for the matter.
    • WBK Arranges for a separate appraisal conducted by Mark Shonberg (Valbridge Property Advisors)

 

  • October 25, 2022: District receives a memo from Attorney Lee Dellecker from WBK stating that Shonberg’s work to this point has shown that the County’s original assessment was problematic and that the District should enter into settlement negotiations with CPV in order to avoid a court decision which could potentially dictate that the complete amount of overpayment be made immediately
    • During the course of the next 12 months, several conference calls were held with Attorney Delecker to discuss negotiation updates.  The District proposed a long term repayment plan, a PILOT agreement, etc… 

 

  • November 2, 2023: the District receives notification that CPV has agreed to a three year repayment agreement.

 

  • November 13, 2023: Board approves agreement

 

  • December 13, 2023: District’s legal counsel receives notification from CPV Fairview’s counsel that they would be willing to restructure the repayment of their over collected taxes on a timeframe that would be less burdensome to the school district.  They graciously proposed a 9 year repayment / credit plan with no interest to be paid by the district.  They stated that they were sympathetic to the District’s position as it was not responsible for the over assessment error but was disproportionately harmed by it.

 

  • December 20, 2023:  Special Board Meeting of CCSD Board of Directors.  Revised 9-Year Repayment Plan with CPV Fairview Approved




January 2024 Updates:

 

  • The CCSD Board hired an architectural and engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study.   Does that mean that there is a plan to expand a building or to build something?
    • No.  The feasibility study is a “Space Utilization” study.  If there is ever any consideration to reconfiguring grade levels in a school system, a feasibility study is best practice to ensure that a building’s infrastructure can handle changing capacity.  An individual was quoted in the local newspaper stating that school districts only conduct feasibility studies before something is built, and that person was/is incorrect.  

 

  • CPV restructured the repayment period for their over-collected taxes.   Why is the feasibility study continuing? 
    • The District is extremely grateful for the flexibility that CPV has shown by restructuring the debt to be paid over 9 years rather than 3 years, but the bottom line is that the end result is nearly the same:  the District must pay back $3.78M because of the poor assessment, and the local tax revenue was greatly reduced.  In the original 3-Year repayment period, the District paid a larger lump sum, CPV’s taxes were credited (waived) for the three-year period, and the District paid back a larger amount annually.  When the power plant went into taxation, the District received over $1M annually from the property in real estate taxes.  Even after the statutory 25% holdback was factored (once the County’s assessment was contested), the revenue was projected to be over $750k.  That amount will be reduced to $184k after the 9-Year credit period during which the District will also repay CPV $100k annually (in addition to crediting the real estate taxes).   In summary, although the District is extremely thankful for the new extended period, it amounts to a zero interest loan.  Like a business, the District needs to be able to right-size based on current and projected enrollment numbers.



  • Why and how did the District spend the money from CPV?
    • As stated in the previous version of this FAQ (below), the revenue was absorbed into the general fund budget.  The District did not go on a spending spree.  Although the roof on our high school was replaced a year or two ahead of schedule, the additional revenue from the power plant allowed the Board to eliminate the per capita tax on district residents.  The revenue also prevented millage (local property tax) increases.  In fact, Central Cambria until this current year, had been the only school district in Cambria County that did not increase its millage rate in the past dozen years, with most districts having approved increases multiple times during that period.  In addition to preventing tax increases, the revenue from CPV allowed the District to maintain staffing levels while student enrollment decreased, reducing average class sizes. Some might argue that the additional $1M+ per year that had been temporarily added to the district’s revenue only served to subsidize inefficient operations and only delayed the inevitable necessity to reconfigure grade levels–just as nearly every other local school district had done previously or is in the process of doing currently. 

 

  • What would the District have done if the power plant had never been built?
    • This is a question that we have received a few times, and it is a very good one.  To answer it, we first must explain how schools are funded in Pennsylvania.  Primarily, there are four sources of revenue to the 500 public school districts: State, Local, Federal, and Grants (the first two are by far the largest sources).  State funding is determined by a formula that includes multiple variables.  The largest portion of the state allocation comes from the “BEF” or Basic Education Formula, and that is a factor that is unique to each district, but that factor is multiplied by the “ADM” or Average Daily Membership (enrollment) in each district.  When enrollment declines, as is the case of nearly all school districts in our region, state funding remains stagnant.  Similarly, local revenue remains stagnant unless millage rates are increased.  However, district costs are never stagnant.  Just as inflation has impacted home budgets, it also impacts school districts.  Add to that mix the insane funding formula for cyber charter schools (Central Cambria taxpayers pay nearly $800k in tuition for approximately 40 cyber charter students).  To summarize the response to the question regarding what the district would have done had the power plant never existed, the answer is that the District either would have had to downsize staff, raise local taxes significantly, or a combination of both.  As stated in the previous FAQ, Richland School District has the same number of students but approximately 20 fewer teachers, and that disparity is mainly a result of having one elementary school versus having two.  

 

  • Can’t the District just reduce expenditures by initiating “Zero-Based Budgeting” for “Department Heads?”
    • No.  Department heads were eliminated nearly eight years ago.  Additionally, the District’s materials and resources purchases are typically made through grant funding that is earmarked for such. Non-grant spending on instructional materials and resources for the entire school district totals to less than the cost of one teacher’s salary and benefits for a year (we have 130 teachers), and those purchasing decisions are made by the Assistant Superintendent only when she determines that the purchase is necessary for the benefit of students.  In essence, they have always been “zero-based.”

 

  • The local newspaper recently wrote an article in which it stated that closing Jackson Elementary would save the district $100k.  Is that true?
    • No.  That number only includes utility costs such as heating oil and electricity.  Most of the excess cost of running two elementary buildings greatly below capacity derives from the additional staffing costs brought about by redundant services and unsustainably low class sizes.  The total potential cost savings from consolidating elementary schools would exceed $1M as written below in the prior FAQ. An actual example from this would be the current 3rd grade class at Jackson Elementary.  There are currently 27 students in that grade level.  If the District had decided to have only 1 teacher in that grade level, a classroom of 27 students would be slightly too high.  However, having two teachers as we do now, means that, currently, there is a classroom of 14 students and one with only 13 students. Had all of the district’s third graders been under one roof, we would need only a total of 5 homeroom teachers rather than the current six. While that is nice to have very small classes, it is also not an efficient use of resources.  On average, each teacher costs taxpayers over $100k when including salary, benefits, payroll taxes, and the district’s obligation to the state pension system for the teacher.  Therefore, the Board will have to decide between keeping current staffing levels (with fewer students) or a significant increase in the millage rate.  In order to “right size” staffing to reflect the decreased enrollment, some level of grade level reconfiguration would likely be necessary at the elementary level.




  • Would there be significant cost savings associated with combining students in Grades 3 through Grade 5?
    • Yes, while it wouldn’t be as much of a cost savings as completely integrating all 6 grade levels to one building, it would save the taxpayers roughly $500k, an amount that would prevent a tax increase of over 3 Mills.  Moreover, if the feasibility study were to determine that this partial integration were possible, the staffing reductions could be made through attrition–as in merely not replacing teachers who retire or who have resigned for other positions.  

 

  • If the District can save $500k from reducing instructional staff by not replacing retiring teachers through partial elementary school consolidation, what about administrative and clerical staff costs?
    • Fair is fair.  If we need fewer teachers because of declining enrollment, we should also need fewer administrators as well.  We plan to save an additional $200k per year by not replacing administrative and clerical staff positions through attrition.  We are also expanding our sharing of services between local districts in order to operate more efficiently. That $200k reduction equates to roughly 1.25 Mills of property taxes that would not need to be increased. In all, the staff reductions made possible by a partial integration of elementary schools would save the District roughly $700k or 4.5 Mills of property taxes that would not need to be increased.  

 

  • If students from Jackson Township in Grade 3 through Grade 5 were to begin being educated at Cambria Elementary, what would happen with the newly vacant classrooms at Jackson Elementary?
    • One possibility would be to utilize the space to expand our pre-kindergarten offering through a third party provider.  Potentially, the Educational Improvement Tax Credit program could be utilized.  In this state program run through the PA Department of Community & Economic Development, a local business could apply for tax credits of up to 90% of a donation to an approved PreK provider, and the donations could be used to reduce or eliminate tuition costs via preschool scholarships.

 

  • In the newspaper article, it was suggested by an individual that this would put the churches out of business.  Is that true?
    • Obviously not. Most of our kindergarten students who did not qualify for PreK Counts did not attend any pre-Kindergarten programs.  This would only provide more options for parents and students.



  • Would expanding Pre-K options harm the Pre-K Counts classrooms?
    • No, the PreK Counts program requires students to qualify based on family income.  That state funded program would still be available. Although research very clearly shows extensive lifelong benefits for students who attend quality pre-kindergarten programs, unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not fund universal pre-kindergarten.  However, utilizing programs such as EITC could potentially assist more families to make preK a possibility. 

 

  • What are the current class sizes at the elementary schools? 
    •  The class sizes are very inconsistent as a result of having two buildings.  Class sizes below 18 or 19 aren’t financially sustainable, and in fact, research has shown repeatedly that there are much more cost effective interventions available than having class sizes lower than that level.



  • CURRENT ACTUAL CLASS SIZES

 

Grade Level

Cambria - A

Cambria - B

Cambria - C

Cambria - D

Jackson - A

Jackson - B

Cambria AVG

Jackson AVG

Kindergarten

18

17

17

17

16

16

17.25

16.00

Grade 1

19

19

18

18

21

21

18.50

21.00

Grade 2

22

21

21

X

18

18

21.33

18.00

Grade 3

21

21

21

21

14

13

21.00

13.50

Grade 4

18

18

18

17

19

18

17.75

18.50

Grade 5

21

21

21

20

15

15

20.75

15.00

                 

Average (Mean) Class Size at Cambria Elementary

19.43

       

Average (Mean) Class Size at Jackson Elementary

17

       

 

  • If the feasibility study were to show that integration of students in grades three through five were possible, would that mean that class sizes would skyrocket? 
    • No, and once again, there would be no trailers.
    • 24-25 Class Sizes if Grades 3-5 Combined ($500K or 3+ Mill Savings)

 

Grade Level

Cambria - A

Cambria - B

Cambria - C

Cambria - D

Cambria - E

Jackson - A

Jackson - B

Cambria AVG

Jackson AVG

Kindergarten*

18

17

17

17

x

16

16

17.25

16.00

Grade 1

18

17

17

17

x

16

16

17.25

16.00

Grade 2

19

19

18

18

x

21

21

18.50

21.00

Grade 3

20

20

20

20

20

x

x

20.00

x

Grade 4

23

22

22

22

22

x

x

22.20

x

Grade 5

22

22

22

21

21

x

x

21.60

x

                   

Average (mean) class sizes K-2

17.67

             

Average (mean) class sizes 3-5

21.27

             
                   

*Assumption: 24-25 Kindergarten enrollment matches 23-24 (PDE Projects a decline)

         




____________________________________________________________________________

Original Document

 

  • Is Jackson Elementary closing?
    • The Board approved a feasibility study to determine if there is any financial and/or education benefit to integrating to one building.  The companies conducting the study will present recommendations to the Board at a public meeting once their work is complete.  There is a possibility that the recommendation would be to keep both buildings open as-is or to integrate some grade levels together such as grades 4 and 5, etc…  The feasibility study will likely take months to complete. By law, no school district can close any school building without holding a public hearing at least three months before a public vote.  Also, the time and location of the hearing has to be posted publicly in newspapers and district websites 15 days prior to the public hearing.  

 

  • Why did the Board have to pay for a feasibility study?
    • The Board felt that it was essential to get an expert opinion on space utilization and efficient operating costs.  Whenever there is any possibility of realigning grade levels and potentially adding more students to any building, it is vital to ensure that the building could handle additional capacity from an infrastructure standpoint.  While it is obvious that a few decades ago, Cambria Elementary School held more students than what the District’s total current K-5 enrollment is, changes occur in ADA requirements, etc…

 

  • Why is this happening now?
    • Because of the loss of revenue and the large repayment that the district has to make, a large strain is placed on the budget.  The $3.78M that must be repaid equals 13.5% of our annual budget.  In order to compensate for this loss, the District needs to look at all operating expenses in order to reduce costs that have the minimal impact on students.  Before increasing taxes, the Board feels that it is prudent to make sure that we are operating efficiently. Broadly speaking, operating two elementary schools instead of one translates to an excess cost of roughly $1.25M.  Declining enrollment shown on the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Website shows that the number of students in the district will fall sharply, especially at the elementary level.  Having two buildings with all six grade levels means that resources are spread out thinly and class sizes vary greatly from year to year and from building to building.  For example, if there are 100 students in grade 3, five teachers would each have 20 students.  However, If 28 students are in one building and 72 are in the other building, obviously we cannot have even class size, and it becomes problematic.  Do you have one large class of 28, or do you have two classrooms with 14 students?  Note that an overwhelming majority of the District’s budget goes to teacher salary and benefits.  While it is nice to have class sizes of 14, it is not realistic nor financially feasible. By an overwhelming majority, the biggest driver of our costs is personnel.  Because state subsidy is granted on the basis of student enrollment, we simply can’t continue to have the same number of staff when fewer students are enrolled. 

 

  • If the elementary schools are integrated into one building, does this mean that teachers, administrators, and support staff will be fired and furloughed.
    • It would be possible to reduce the overall number of staff positions through attrition (i.e., not replacing positions after resignations or retirements). The reality is that the Richland School District is almost identical to Central Cambria in terms of student enrollment.  Currently, Central Cambria has 1549 students.  Richland has three fewer at 1546.  However, Richland also has 20 fewer certified staff and 9 fewer custodians.  How can that be?  Does Richland have high class sizes?  No, they do not.  Richland is a very successful school district. The difference in staffing comes down to the fact that Richland operates 2 buildings, and Central Cambria operates 4. 

 

  • Why would the Board consider potentially closing Jackson Elementary when the building was just renovated to add air conditioning a few years ago?
    • Yes, the building did receive mini-split heat pumps as well as new vinyl tile flooring.  That will almost certainly play into the recommendations that the architect/engineers make in the feasibility study.  Also, it’s important to note that those renovations have added value to the building regardless of whether it holds six grade levels of elementary school students or not.  Once news of the feasibility study was published in the media, the district immediately received multiple inquiries regarding leasing classroom space from preschool and daycare providers.

 

  • Can’t the District just raise taxes in order to compensate for the loss in revenue?
    • While it is not realistic for any school district to avoid any and all millage increases, the Board has the fiduciary responsibility of managing the schools efficiently for students, but it also has the responsibility to the taxpayer.  For example, the $1.25M that could potentially be saved by combining elementary schools could also be raised by increasing the millage rate by 7 ¼ points.  To some people, an additional $108 per year might not make an impact.  For some senior citizens living on monthly social security payments, it may make a significant difference.  Therefore, the board takes the responsibility to ensure efficient operations very seriously.  We must also ensure that budget cuts don’t impact the quality of education.  Young families seek out the Central Cambria School District because of that quality.  Property values are higher in our district because our educational outcomes are higher.  We also need to consider the financial value of a high quality education for both our students and district property owners. 

 

  • If the power plant’s taxes were being paid under protest, why did the District spend any of the money from CPV’s tax collection?
    • Once the District was made aware that CPV Fairview was appealing their assessment from the county, the District immediately began placing 25% of the collection into an escrow account.  Typically, assessments and reassessments vary by a few percentage points.  This assessment was determined to be over five times what the actual value was because the appraiser used a method of valuation that is not permitted in Pennsylvania.  They measured the potential revenue generation rather than merely the actual real estate value.  School districts do not have assessment offices.  That is a function delegated to county governments in Pennsylvania.  The three taxing authorities for properties are the county, the school district, and the local municipality.  In this instance, the municipality (Jackson Township) was not negatively affected by the poor assessment because the Township had previously entered into a Payment in Lieu of Taxation with CPV.  The municipality had this leverage because it was responsible for approving the permitting for the construction of the power plant.  The District became aware that the County’s appraisal that was completed by the New Hampshire-based company was problematic in October of 2022 after the Board had hired its own special counsel and conducted its own appraisal.  Because of advice from our counsel, we could not make anything public until the settlement agreement was reached, and that occurred during the public Board meeting on November 13, 2023. 

 

  • What were the additional funds spent on?
    • Our budgets are public.  The Board decreased taxes as a result of the revenue from CPV Fairview by eliminating the per-capita tax on residents.  The projections were budgeted to the general fund. The Board also approved the replacement of the roof of Central Cambria High School. However, just like every other school district, most of the district budget goes to payroll for faculty and staff.  Again, 75% of the revenue was budgeted, and 25% was held in escrow. 



  • Why does it cost so much more to operate two elementary schools rather than one?
    • Most of this savings comes from eliminating redundancy. A scenario mentioned above describes the challenges of balancing class sizes between two buildings with declining enrollment.  With only one building, we could easily manage class sizes that average around 20 with only 5 homerooms in each of the six grade levels instead of the current six.  Support services including special education, guidance, and gifted education would become more efficient if all students in a grade level were in one building. 

 

  • Would transporting all students to one building mean much longer bus rides for elementary students?
    • Jackson Elementary and Cambria Elementary are 7 miles away from each other, and there is not a single stoplight in between the two buildings.  If all students would attend one building, it would likely add an additional ten minutes to some bus runs if the route would be unchanged other than the building destination. The students in grade 6-12 from Jackson Township have been educated with students from Cambria Township and Ebensburg Borough for decades.

 

  • If the recommendation from the feasibility study would be to close Jackson Elementary completely, would students be educated in trailers at Cambria Elementary?
    • There is no chance of that happening.  There has never been any discussion nor the possibility of any discussion of that to occur.  There will be no trailers. 

 

  • What about school safety?
    • There is a valid argument that it would be much safer to have students in one building.  With more efficient operations and fewer buildings to maintain, it would be more feasible to assign a full time police officer for elementary school students.   Additionally, fewer buildings means that fewer costly security cameras and other necessary protective elements would be required.  Therefore, the district could focus more resources on students rather than buildings. Everyone will be on the same campus which helps for extra safety measures. The two main entrances can be blocked off if needed. JES is on a highway which makes safety more difficult. 

 

  • What are the potential educational benefits of having all elementary teachers and students in one building?
    • Collaboration is key.  Professional growth occurs best when professionals work together.  Our teachers, for years, at the elementary level, attempt to make what we refer to as the “Seven Mile Bridge” between the two buildings.  They do well with connecting through technology.  However, there is no replacement for professional dialogue in person.  Our Friday afternoon professional development is going to pay a huge dividends.  If all of our teachers of a grade level could be together each week without having to be concerned about traveling for professional development, the sky will be the limit. 

 

  • Is the Central Cambria School District too large geographically to have only one elementary School at approximately 100 square miles?
    • Locally, two of our neighboring districts, Cambria Heights and Forest Hills, have nearly the same square mileage with only one elementary school.  There is currently only one other district in Cambria County that maintains more than one elementary school, and that is Penn Cambria.  PCSD has recently conducted a feasibility study district-wide, and the recommendation was to transition from five total buildings to three. If that occurs, we would then be the only district in the county with more than one elementary school.  In Bedford County, Chestnut Ridge School District has over double our square mileage at 222 and has only one elementary school. 



Pennsylvania Department of Education Enrollment Projections for Central Cambria

 

School District Enrollment Projections

   

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

 

Total

ELEM

SEC

MS

HS

Actual

2018 - 2019

Central Cambria SD

114

106

108

122

120

111

124

127

139

149

118

137

137

 

1612

681

807

390

541

Actual

2019 - 2020

Central Cambria SD

109

106

111

112

120

118

114

128

127

138

145

118

131

 

1577

676

787

369

532

Actual

2020 - 2021

Central Cambria SD

103

105

108

111

114

122

118

117

134

132

144

147

119

 

1574

663

793

369

542

Actual

2021 - 2022

Central Cambria SD

103

101

109

106

113

119

129

122

121

144

133

147

150

 

1597

651

817

372

574

Actual

2022 - 2023

Central Cambria SD

110

106

107

109

112

116

127

132

122

128

149

133

150

 

1601

660

814

381

560

Actual

23-24

 

100

116

104

113

111

113

109

126

132

126

122

138

131

 

1541

657

775

367

517

Projection

2023 - 2024

Central Cambria SD

98

87

110

107

115

114

120

131

135

127

130

150

136

 

1560

631

809

386

543

Projection

2024 - 2025

Central Cambria SD

94

87

91

111

113

117

118

123

134

141

129

131

153

 

1542

613

811

375

554

Projection

2025 - 2026

Central Cambria SD

80

83

91

91

117

115

121

121

125

140

143

130

134

 

1491

577

793

367

547

Projection

2026 - 2027

Central Cambria SD

78

71

86

91

96

119

119

125

123

130

142

144

133

 

1457

541

797

367

549

Projection

2027 - 2028

Central Cambria SD

76

69

74

86

96

98

124

122

128

128

132

143

147

 

1423

499

800

374

550

Projection

2028 - 2029

Central Cambria SD

74

68

72

74

91

98

102

128

124

133

130

133

146

 

1373

477

794

354

542

Projection

2029 - 2030

Central Cambria SD

73

66

71

72

78

93

102

105

131

129

135

131

136

 

1322

453

767

338

531

Projection

2030 - 2031

Central Cambria SD

71

65

69

71

76

79

97

105

107

136

131

136

134

 

1277

431

749

309

537

Projection

2031 - 2032

Central Cambria SD

69

63

68

69

75

77

82

100

107

111

138

132

139

 

1230

421

727

289

520

Projection

2032 - 2033

Central Cambria SD

68

62

66

68

73

76

80

84

102

111

113

139

135

 

1177

413

684

266

498