Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central York business operations committee reviews updated budget projections; staff proposes raising tax increase to 2.5% for buffer
Summary
The district’s business office presented updated 2024–25 projections and a 2025–26 budget draft that factors in a likely York Galleria tax appeal, higher utility capacity charges and an increased transportation subsidy; staff recommended considering a 2.5% tax increase to maintain a stronger fund balance amid uncertainties.
Central York School District business staff presented updated revenue and expense projections for the current fiscal year and a draft budget for 2025–26, citing a mix of one‑time adjustments and ongoing trends that affect the district’s fund balance.
The update matters because staff said a combination of a sizeable pending tax appeal, rising utility capacity charges and changing transportation routing has altered revenue and expense expectations for 2024–25 and could affect the recommended tax‑rate decision for 2025–26.
Staff reported several key items: a pending York Galleria tax appeal that staff listed as a $172,000 liability in the projection and said staff have asked the property owner’s counsel to accept a 10% early‑payment discount (negotiations ongoing); an increase in transportation subsidy tied to improved vehicle capacity utilization — staff said consolidated routes raised average ridership on vans and buses and projected an additional roughly $1.3 million in subsidy for the current year; and higher electric capacity charges from the regional market that a vendor warned could add about $150,000 to next year’s budget. Staff also added modest increases for special education agency costs and a server replacement for backup infrastructure.
Because of these and other adjustments, staff said the district’s projected ending fund balance for 2024–25 is up roughly $4.2 million (bringing projected total fund balance near $12 million) but recommended caution. Staff told the committee they had originally proposed a 1.75% tax‑rate increase; after incorporating recent changes they recommended the board consider a higher 2.5% increase to provide a larger buffer against continued uncertainties such as additional tax appeals or state funding changes.
Staff outlined that the technology financing discussed earlier fits within the proposed tech budget and that the revised 2025–26 revenue projection in staff’s model is about $117 million with proposed expenses near $115 million; under the proposed 2.5% tax increase staff projected a proposed increase to fund balance of about $1.8 million for 2025–26. Staff noted that a potential cyber‑charter payment reform being discussed at the state level could produce larger future savings (staff modeled an example saving more than $800,000 under one proposed reform scenario), but that state actions remained uncertain.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about specific line items, and staff provided operational detail: how the transportation subsidy is calculated (vehicle age, miles with/without students, and average daily ridership), the reason for the server replacement, and the timing of PSSA testing-related tech purchases. A member complimented the business office on timely, transparent updates.
No formal budget adoption or tax‑rate decision occurred at the committee meeting; staff said they will continue to refine projections and present the full budget to the board, and that final tax‑rate decisions will follow the full board process.
