Central York SD finances show short-term gains but multi‑year gap; board to consider final 2025‑26 budget next week

Miss Martin, staff member, presented the Central York School District proposed 2025‑26 general fund budget Tuesday, saying the district expects $118,174,314 in total revenue and $115,000,005.25 in expenses and plans to ask the board to approve a proposed final budget next Monday for a 30‑day public inspection before final adoption on June 16.

The budget presentation outlined why the proposal matters: projected stronger-than-expected local receipts and interest income would raise the district’s fund balance to roughly $12 million at the end of 2024‑25, creating room to commit funds for capital and curriculum needs while proposing a 3% property tax increase that would generate about $2 million in local revenue.

Miss Martin said the district’s projected 2024‑25 revenue is about $115.79 million, driven by unanticipated state aid, better real estate transfer taxes and higher interest earnings. She described projected 2024‑25 expenses of about $111.8 million and an expected increase to fund balance of roughly $4 million, bringing the projected ending fund balance to about $12 million. For 2025‑26 she proposed local revenue of $83,540,000 (about 71 percent of total revenue), state revenue of $33,649,000 (about 28 percent) and federal revenue under 1 percent.

The proposal includes a 3 percent tax increase—0.6823 mills—on top of a county assessment growth of about 1 percent. Miss Martin said the average residential property tax bill would rise by about $110.47 per year under the proposal; homestead/farmstead relief and a larger property tax reduction allocation this year reduce the net impact for qualifying homeowners. She told the board the district recently received a property tax reduction allocation of $1,867,780, about $249,000 more than last year, which is passed through to qualifying homestead/farmstead taxpayers and translates to roughly $208.76 in savings for those taxpayers in 2025‑26 if they qualify.

On the expense side Miss Martin flagged higher substitute and agency staffing costs, increased insurance and storm‑related insurance proceeds tied to a prior storm at the high school, anticipated higher utilities driven by projected capacity charges, and special education tuition and transportation increases. She said salaries and benefits account for about 71 percent of the budget, transportation about 5 percent, special education and tuition about 11 percent and operational supplies and equipment about 13 percent.

Miss Martin reviewed longer-term items: the district projects employer pension (PSERS) contribution rates near 34 percent for 2025‑26 and warned projected increases could approach 37 percent in several years based on PSERS projections. She also highlighted cyber charter tuition costs, noting cyber enrollment and special‑education mixes have increased per‑pupil tuition costs; the district is projected to pay more for cyber charter tuition in 2024‑25 than in earlier years even with lower enrollment. She said proposed state cyber‑charter reforms could save the district roughly $800,000 annually if enacted, but added the legislation’s outcome was uncertain.

Director Stricker, a board member who said he has reviewed budgets for five years, praised staff efforts to mitigate expenses and credited district staff—specifically naming Ryan Billet—for $1.3 million in annual busing savings that he said yielded an estimated $7 million improvement when rolled over multiple years. But Stricker warned the district’s rolling eight‑year projection still shows a deteriorating trajectory, estimating a potential $15.1 million cumulative shortfall in the out‑years unless the board either imposes repeated tax increases or implements deep expense reductions. He presented illustrative scenarios: a mix of multi‑year tax increases or, alternatively, immediate expense reductions of $2.5 million in 2025‑26 rising to higher amounts in later years if postponed.

Board members asked clarifying questions about specific lines of the budget: what falls under pupil personnel services (psychologists, librarians, curriculum development, social workers), the community services function (pool expenses such as lifeguard and aquatics director salaries), and the impact of intermediate unit (IU) cost‑per‑service changes on special‑education costs. Miss Martin confirmed the IU cost spreadsheet had just been received and said she and Dr. Mason would analyze its budget impact and could present changes as needed.

On fund balance designations Miss Martin proposed committing $3.5 million to capital projects, retaining the district’s PSERS commitment, and assigning $1.5 million for future curriculum purchases (IntoMath and Wonders renewals). That proposal would leave an unassigned fund balance of about $6 million at the end of 2024‑25, which is below an 8 percent target the board has discussed. Board members discussed increasing the unassigned fund balance to the 8 percent goal (roughly $9.2 million given current expense levels) and the tradeoffs between assigning funds for curriculum versus keeping liquidity for operations. Several board members favored maximizing the unassigned balance to near 8 percent and agreed to have staff present updated numbers at the next meeting.

Miss Martin outlined next steps: staff will present the proposed final budget for board approval next Monday to begin the 30‑day public inspection period; final budget adoption is scheduled for the June 16 board meeting. She also said staff will continue to refine current‑year projections as actual numbers become available and will assess the IU cost‑per‑service for possible budget adjustments.

The board did not take a final vote on the 2025‑26 budget at the meeting; members signaled consensus to revise fund balance designations per the discussion and to consider the proposed final budget at a special agenda item next week.

Miss Martin and multiple board members emphasized uncertainty around cyber‑charter reform, state budget actions, interest‑rate movements and potential property tax assessment appeals as key risks that could materially change revenue or expense projections in coming years.