Council Rock projects $14.8 million preliminary gap; 0.57% tax increase included for full-day kindergarten

ANTHONY RAPP, director of business administration, told the Council Rock School District Finance Committee on March 24 that the district’s 2025–26 general fund budget is an early draft and likely to change as administration reviews revenues and expenditures.

“This budget is in a very, very early phase,” Rapp said, adding that numbers were compiled the week before and that central administration and individual schools still must complete detailed reviews. Rapp presented an estimated total revenue figure of $280,181,485 and said preliminary expenditures put the district about $14,800,000 in deficit, roughly 5% of total spending.

Rapp said the proposed budget includes a 0.57% real-estate tax increase specifically to fund the second half of full‑day kindergarten salaries and benefits. “That is the only tax increase that's included in this budget,” he said.

The nut graf: The presentation flagged three drivers of the gap — flat or slow-growing state support, rising non‑personnel costs, and projected staffing and benefits for full‑day kindergarten. It also framed decisions the board must make in the coming weeks within the Act 1 index, a state cap that this year is 4% and therefore limits additional tax increases without voter referendum.

Rapp summarized revenue trends the district used for the draft: the district relied on prior-year state funding figures rather than tentative proposals in the governor’s budget and noted modest increases in local revenue and flat-to-declining federal program revenue. He explained that some state subsidies tied to salaries (for retirement and Social Security) were projected to rise as payroll increases but that Council Rock historically uses last year’s amounts for conservatism while negotiations with teachers are ongoing.

On expenditures, Rapp said total salary-and-benefit costs reflect administration and support‑staff changes (including an eliminated technology management position), retirements and the built-in positions for full‑day kindergarten. He pointed to a substantial increase in non‑personnel spending (equipment, software, supplies and contracts) and said administration would focus reviews there to narrow the gap.

Enrollment and staffing figures for kindergarten influenced the budget assumptions. Rapp said the budget modeled 17 kindergarten teacher positions and that, as of the meeting, 395 students had registered for full‑day kindergarten. He added that the district had 472 students enrolled in half‑day kindergarten as of March 1 and that spring and summer enrollment increases are typical.

Rapp also described other revenue and contract items that could change the final numbers: an earned income tax estimate from Keystone (not yet received); investment income projections from Cornerstone that the administration expects to match last year’s budgeted amount; and pending RFPs for printers/copiers and janitorial services that could raise or lower costs.

Board members pressed for clarity about the Act 1 index and the board’s near-term choices. Rapp explained that the Act 1 index for the district is 4% this year and that, after accounting for the 0.57% already included for kindergarten, a remaining maximum 3.43% is technically available but not a commitment. Michael Roosevelt, a school board member, and others emphasized the need for conservative assumptions and for narrowing the budget gap without prematurely promising positions or expenditures.

Ending: Rapp said administration would continue line‑by‑line reviews, await the earned income tax estimate and present a revised budget to the finance committee and the full board in April. The board scheduled additional budget review meetings and planned a formal board vote on the budget the following week.