Centennial School District budget vote fails as board deadlocks over tax increase

The Centennial School District Board of School Directors failed Tuesday to adopt a final 2025–26 general fund budget after repeated votes on a proposed tax increase produced no majority. The administration presented a budget showing $156,447,125 in expenses and $151,904,429 in revenue, leaving a projected general-fund gap of roughly $4.5 million; the board voted down the administration’s 4% tax-increase proposal and two lower-rate alternatives and left the matter unresolved.

The result matters because the district is relying on money held in its debt-service fund to help cover operations while expenses — including special-education placements, benefits and contractual increases — continue to rise. The business administrator warned that the debt-service fund is projected to fall from about $15 million to roughly $8.8 million under current assumptions, and trustees cautioned that continued draws on savings could hurt future bond refinancing and capital work.

Board members debated the math and the trade-offs for more than two hours. A motion to adopt the budget with a 4% tax increase initially failed on a roll call of 6 no, 2 yes. Subsequent motions to set the tax increase at 3.75% (3 yes, 5 no) and 3.5% (3 yes, 5 no in one tally; an earlier roll call showed 5 no, 3 yes for 3.5) also failed. After further procedural votes the board reintroduced the 4% adoption motion later in the meeting and again rejected it by a 6–2 margin. The board did not approve a final levy before adjourning and scheduled follow-up budget action for Thursday, June 26 at 7 p.m.

“I don't see how we can go below the Act 1,” said one board member who voted no earlier but urged the board to consider cost-cutting options before accepting a higher levy. Business administrator Thomas Greenwood told the board that “not going to the Act 1 is going to continue to expand our deficit” and emphasized the long-term risk to the district’s debt profile if savings are used to plug operating shortfalls.

Administrators told the board they had identified about $1.3 million in reductions and noted that the district expects an estimated refund of roughly $2.7 million from the Intermediate Unit (IU) related to special-education billing; that amount, officials said, will be recorded in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, but is not yet in the district’s bank account. Greenwood said the IU credit will “offset the expected loss” and that the district is comfortable with the estimate, but emphasized the number is contingent on the IU’s reconciliation.

Board members raised concerns about the long-term effects of repeated deficit spending on the district’s credit rating and ability to refinance bonds. Trustees discussed an upcoming refinancing of series 2017 and 2018 bonds that administrators expect could save money if market conditions remain favorable; Greenwood said the district will not pursue refinancing if it does not yield debt-service savings.

The meeting produced no new revenue decision. Trustees directed that budget discussion continue at a special meeting on Thursday, June 26, when the board will again consider a tax levy and related resolutions required by state reporting.

Votes at a glance: - Personnel agenda (3.1): approved, roll call 8–0. Items included hiring, leaves, resignations, appointments and co-curricular assignments as presented on the board packet. - Draft budget adoption, PDE-2028 with 4% tax increase (3.2): failed on roll call (6 no, 2 yes) and again later in the meeting (6 no, 2 yes) after additional procedural actions. - Motions to set tax at 3.75% and 3.5%: each failed to gain a majority (3.75% vote 3–5; 3.5% vote 3–5 / 3–5 as recorded in roll calls). - Motion to table budget for Thursday: failed (5–3 in one roll call tally); board ultimately scheduled a reconvened meeting for Thursday, June 26 at 7 p.m. to continue budget work.

What’s next: The board left the general fund levy unresolved. Administrators said they will return with numbers tied to any new levy level and reiterated that any continued reliance on the debt-service fund will shorten the period in which the district can avoid more severe operational or capital trade-offs.