Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District presents proposed 2025–26 budget, recommends 4.8% tax index to offset assessment losses
Summary
District finance staff presented a balanced proposed general fund budget for 2025–26 that relies on a recommended 4.8% tax index (1.2515 mills) to generate roughly $3.25 million and outlined fund balances, bond timelines and planned capital draws including buses and turf replacements.
The Bethel Park School District presented a proposed 2025–26 general fund operating budget on May 13 that the administration described as balanced on paper and recommended applying a 4.8% tax index (an increase of 1.2515 mills) to offset assessment losses tied to changes in the county common level ratio (CLR).
The district's presenter said the 4.8% index would generate about $3.25 million in revenue and increase the millage rate to 27.3263. "One mill generates $2,590,000," the presenter told the board, and the median homeowner in Bethel Park would see an estimated tax increase of about $194 based on a reported median home value of $155,000. The presenter said the homestead exclusion will be about $297.
Administrators explained the recommendation in the context of a multi‑year decline in the county CLR. The presenter said the district has experienced a $26.5 million decline in assessed value (a 1.02% reduction) attributable in part to appeals, and estimated that appeals of roughly 758 properties since the CLR shift had cost the district about $1.6 million in revenue; the district also cited a $1.8 million loss from an assessment appeal at South Hills Village.
The presentation described revenue and expenditure breakdowns: real-estate taxes account for about 72% of revenues, personnel is about 72% of expenditures, and debt-service (principal and interest) about 13%, leaving roughly 15% of the budget as discretionary. The administration said the district is within about 1% variance of estimated actuals versus budget for the current year after adjusting for the board's earlier decision not to accept a $2 million electric-bus grant.
Officials reviewed capital and fund balances: Fund 32 (capital) held about $4.8 million, from which the administration plans to spend roughly $3.2 million next year — including purchases estimated for six buses, turf replacement for two fields, and parking-lot work on Blackhawk Drive — leaving a projected ending balance near $1.6 million. Fund 31 (IMS) had an estimated beginning balance of about $3.2 million and the administration said it expects to spend that on finishing IMS; Fund 39 (elementary construction) showed an estimated beginning balance of about $88.2 million but an estimated total need to complete the project near $103 million, which may require an additional bond issuance of approximately $15 million.
A motion was made to adopt the proposed final general fund budget; district staff explained that the proposed final budget must be posted for a 30‑day public display and comments before the board takes final action. The transcript records the motion and discussion of the display requirement; the transcript does not record a conclusive final adoption vote on the budget at the May 13 meeting, and the administration told the board the matter will be revisited after the public-display period.
A member of the public asked for clarification distinguishing "aggregated gross debt service" from "aggregated local debt service"; finance staff explained that the difference relates to capitalized interest accounting versus the local cash payments the district will make.
Discussion vs. decision: the presentation was informational and the board received the proposed final budget for the 30‑day display and comment period. The board did not record a final adoption vote in the transcript; staff will return to the board with any changes after the public comment period and at the June meeting.
