Centennial School District board fails to adopt 2025–26 final budget after hours of debate

Centennial School District’s board of school directors failed to adopt a final budget for the 2025–26 fiscal year during a special meeting on Thursday, June 26, after multiple motions and roll-call votes ended without the five affirmative votes required to approve the levy and PDE Form 2028 submission.

The board opened the meeting and approved routine agenda items earlier in the session, and it removed the capital, debt-service and food-service budgets from the table by unanimous vote. But debate over the district general-fund budget and the accompanying real-estate tax increase dominated the meeting and produced no final budget adoption before adjournment.

Why it matters: Without an approved final budget and tax levy adopted on Form PDE-2028 before the statutory deadline, the district’s legal authority to commit new expenditures may be limited; board legal counsel warned that failure to adopt a budget by the deadline can trigger statutory remedies, court action and other fiscal risks that could affect payroll, debt service and the district’s operations.

Most important facts

- The motion to adopt the district’s final general-fund budget for fiscal year 2025–26 as presented on Form PDE-2028, with a 4% tax increase and general-fund expenses of $156,447,125 and revenue of $151,904,429, failed on a 4–4 roll-call tie. That motion was listed on the agenda as item 5.1.

- A subsequent motion to approve the same budget with the tax increase set at 3.75% was introduced and seconded but failed on a 3–5 roll call (Yes: Dr. McGuire, Mr. Ginhardt, Mr. Hartline; No: Mr. Martin, Mr. Sadowski, Mrs. Crosson, Mrs. Lynch, Mrs. Brancato).

- A motion to change the tax increase to 3.5% was introduced later in the meeting but did not reach a completed final roll-call adoption before the meeting adjourned; the motion was not adopted during the session.

- Earlier in the meeting the board approved the agenda (item 3.1) and voted unanimously (8–0) to remove from the table adoption motions for the capital fund (Fund 32) in the amount of $3,647,750, the debt service fund (Fund 40) in the amount of $6,767,696, and the food service fund (Fund 50) in the amount of $3,000,950 (figures read from the agenda). Those approvals carried 8–0.

Administration and fiscal context

District business staff reported that the district’s combined fund balances across funds totaled roughly $25 million, but that some reimbursements (for example, an Intermediate Unit overpayment/refund) are expected later in the year (administration said receipts could occur in September). Administration also presented a set of expense reductions already included in the proposed 2025–26 budget that total approximately $1,360,000; the line-item breakdown presented included technology reductions ($265,000), retirement savings ($367,000), school-level reductions (~$51,000), districtwide reductions (~$560,500) and a reorganization (~$183,000). The staff said the district has cut roughly $6 million over the past four years.

Board and legal guidance

Board legal counsel reiterated the legal risks of failing to adopt a budget by the statutory deadline: the district could lack authority to expend funds after June 30, face scrutiny from the Pennsylvania Department of Education or the auditor general, risk default on debt-service obligations or violation of bond covenants, and trigger court actions (including a writ of mandamus) or the statutory removal process under Section 318 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code for neglect of duty. Counsel advised the board to convene special meetings and demonstrate a good-faith effort to adopt a final budget by the deadline.

What board members argued

Members who favored the 4% Levy described it as necessary to reduce the district’s deficit and to avoid deeper reductions later. Opponents said the board has not produced an acceptable long-term plan to reduce expenditures and that repeated short-term millage increases compound fiscal problems. Several directors urged the board to develop a three‑year plan for balancing the budget and to investigate larger structural options — including program and staffing changes — before further tax increases.

Votes at a glance (agenda item 5.1 and related motions)

- Adopt final budget with 4.0% tax increase (Form PDE-2028 as presented): Motion failed — roll call 4 yes, 4 no (motion tie). (Yes recorded for: Dr. McGuire, Mr. Ginhardt, Mr. Hartline and one other; No recorded for: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Crosson, Mrs. Lynch, Mrs. Brancato; record in transcript shows a 4–4 tie.)

- Adopt final budget with 3.75% tax increase (amendment): Motion failed — roll call 3 yes, 5 no (Yes: Dr. McGuire, Mr. Ginhardt, Mr. Hartline; No: Mr. Martin, Mr. Sadowski, Mrs. Crosson, Mrs. Lynch, Mrs. Brancato).

- Adopt final budget with 3.5% tax increase: Motion introduced; no final adoption recorded before adjournment (motion did not carry; meeting adjourned before final adoption).

- Approve agenda (item 3.1): Passed 8–0.

- Remove from table: capital fund (Fund 32), debt-service fund (Fund 40), food service fund (Fund 50) and related amounts: Passed 8–0.

- Motion to adjourn: Passed 4–3 at end of meeting.

Next steps and implications

Because the board left the meeting without a final adopted general-fund budget and tax levy, legal counsel and administration flagged immediate operational risks if the board does not adopt a budget in short order. Counsel recommended additional special meetings and urged the board to show continuing good-faith efforts to adopt a budget on or before the statutory deadline. Board members proposed bringing a separate, explicit three-year budget‑balancing plan back to the board as a distinct action item in future meetings.

Meeting outcome and scheduling

The meeting ended on a motion to adjourn that passed 4–3. Board members set a follow-up meeting for Wednesday, July 2, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.; administration and counsel noted that legal and procedural timelines could still produce complaints or court filings before a July date, and that some reimbursements the district expects are not guaranteed before the end of June.

Ending

The special meeting underscored deep and continuing disagreement among board members over the pace and scale of tax increases needed to address the district’s structural deficit. Administration and counsel repeatedly urged prompt action to avoid statutory and operational consequences; several board members urged a longer-term, multi-year plan to reduce expenditures and to give the community clearer context about trade-offs. The board did not adopt a final budget at the June 26 meeting and scheduled a follow-up session for July 2, 2025.