Columbia‑Montour Vo‑Tech proposes $11.59 million budget; Danville share to fall modestly

Tony Lilo, the Columbia‑Montour Area Vocational‑Technical School representative, presented the vo‑tech’s proposed 2025‑26 budget to the Danville Area School District Committee of the Whole on April 2.

Lede: The vo‑tech’s total proposed budget is $11,593,000. Under the formula used by the joint operating committee — a four‑year rolling average that blends each district’s K‑12 average daily membership (ADM) and the ADM of students who attend the vo‑tech — Danville’s percentage allocation would fall from 21.258% this year to 20.132% next year, reducing Danville’s contribution by a little more than $13,000, Lilo said.

Nut graf: The presentation laid out revenue and expenditure drivers, the allocation method among the six sending districts, and potential program and budget vulnerabilities — chiefly salaries and benefits (about 80% of expenditures), transportation cost treatment, and a recommendation to use some fund balance to limit next‑year increases.

Body: Lilo said salaries, benefits and payroll taxes account for roughly 80% of the vo‑tech’s expenditures and noted the district is in the last year of a teachers’ contract; anticipated contract outcomes will affect final costs. The vo‑tech reported state revenue increases — notably the vocational subsidy rising from about $700,000 to roughly $900,000 — Perkins federal funds of about $199,000, and smaller revenue from interest and summer programs. The presenter proposed using a portion of fund balance to balance the budget so that homeschools’ contributions rise less sharply.

Lilo described a transportation‑funding issue that could reduce district costs if the sending districts opt to change the articles of agreement. Currently the vo‑tech pays bus contracts and charges costs back to homeschools; because homeschools can claim state transportation subsidy but the vo‑tech cannot, reassigning the transportation budget to homeschools could yield net savings for most sending districts, he said. That change would require a vote by all sending districts and an amendment to the articles of agreement; timing and contract cycles make a change for 2025‑26 uncertain.

The presentation also broke out what Danville’s contribution pays for, including a per‑student cost profile. Lilo projected Danville could have up to 99 slots next year (up from 82 currently) and noted 37 of the 82 current Danville students were IEP‑eligible; the vo‑tech’s articles of agreement do not impose extra charges for IEP students. He also answered board questions about staff counts (82 employees total, excluding some temporary positions), the health plan (Central Susquehanna Trust, $500 deductible), class sizes in shops (maximums typically 24 at a time for many vocational programs), and the building’s staffing mix (about 22.5 academic teachers, 17 vocational teachers and 9–10 special education teachers).

Ending: Lilo said the vo‑tech joint operating committee had authorized his presentation and the vo‑tech will place the proposed budget on its board agenda; the Danville board was told it will consider the vo‑tech contribution on its agenda at its next meeting. The district and vo‑tech staff recommended board members contact district business managers or the vo‑tech with follow‑up questions prior to the vote.