South Fayette board adopts 2025–26 budget and approves 1‑mill tax increase

The South Fayette Township School District board on Tuesday approved a final 2025–26 budget that carries $83,051,399 in expenditures and sets a 27.7 millage rate, accepting a 1‑mill tax increase and a planned draw of $5,879,381 from the district’s fund balance to balance the budget.

Ryan Neely, the district’s director of finance, presented the budget and recommended the 1‑mill increase. “My recommendation at this time would be a millage increase of 1 mil,” Neely said during the board’s budget discussion.

Neely framed the recommendation around three factors: slower real estate assessment growth, rising district expenditures (including construction-related debt service), and continuing enrollment growth. He told the board the district projects a $1.8 million deficit for the closing 2024–25 year under current estimates and that the 2025–26 budget assumes continued upward pressure on expenditures.

The finance presentation included specific adjustments carried into the 2025–26 budget: a carried forward increase of $19,760 in special education funding after the final state payment exceeded earlier allocations; a $11,490 increase in projected Title funding; departmental line-item reductions that together total about $65,000; and a $35,000 contingency reduction within student support services. Neely said total district expenditures for 2025–26 are $83,051,399 and that salary and benefits make up roughly 71% of the budget.

Neely reviewed scenarios tying millage changes to revenue. He reiterated that each quarter‑mill raises about $412,000 and that the financial advisor’s earlier analysis tied a 0.9‑mill equivalent to costs from the district’s recent bond issuance (PFM’s figure came out to about 0.89 mil in practice). The board-approved motion adopts a 1‑mill increase rather than the full Act 1 index or the 0.9 mil cited by the adviser.

Board members questioned the level of conservatism in projections and the range of potential outcomes. Board member Jen asked whether the $1.8 million projected deficit was likely to be the final figure; Neely replied that trends point to a deficit and that his estimate reflects a conservative approach while closing out the fiscal year. He said the district remains about three to four months away from final year‑end adjustments and that the final audit and accounting work could change the numbers.

Neely also reviewed local assessment context: the median assessed value in South Fayette Township used for the presentation was $165,400 (Allegheny County figure). He explained the common level ratio mechanism and used a 52.7% common level ratio as an example to show how assessed values relate to market prices.

After discussion and a motion to adopt the budget based on Neely’s recommendation, the board voted 7–0 to approve the final budget (two members were recorded absent). The motion on the floor specified revenue of $77,172,018, expenditures of $83,051,399, a 27.7 millage rate, and borrowing $5,879,381 from fund balance to balance the budget.

The board also approved business and personnel items bundled with the budget meeting: business office items 1–14 and personnel items 1–20 were approved earlier in the meeting by separate motions, and consent agenda items and other routine approvals were carried by voice vote.

Neely and other staff flagged ongoing variables that could affect the district’s finances over the coming year: pending federal and state program decisions (notably uncertainties beyond 2026 for some grant/reimbursement programs), the timing and cost of further construction work (elementary school and bus depot phases had not been bid at the time of the presentation), and year‑end accounting adjustments that could change the final 2024–25 figures. Neely said the district expects to continue closing out the 2024–25 school year through mid‑August and to work with auditors on year‑end adjustments.

Board action on the budget sets the millage and the overall revenue/expenditure plan for 2025–26; specific implementation (detailed spending decisions, bond draws, and construction contracting) will follow normal administrative and board approval processes.

A roll call on the final budget recorded seven yes votes (Jen; Bill; Len; Tom; Prajika; Esther; Joe) and no votes or abstentions none; two board members were absent and recorded in the minutes.