Spring‑Ford Area SD board adopts proposed 2025‑26 budget amid rising health and commercial assessment costs

The Spring‑Ford Area SD Board of School Directors on April 22 adopted a proposed final budget for the 2025–26 school year after a staff presentation that cited a 20% year‑over‑year rise in health‑insurance costs and several large commercial assessment appeals as key pressures.

Board members voted 6–2 to approve submission of the proposed final budget required under Act 1; the vote clears the district to keep options open for final adoption per statutory timelines.

Why it matters: The presentation said the district faces a near‑term gap on the order of $7.36 million and a potential tax impact that would exceed the state Act 1 index unless the board uses options such as referendum exceptions, drawing down a portion of an upcoming debt‑service drop, or a combination of measures. Trustees and staff emphasized uncertainty in state and federal subsidies and the need to weigh short‑term fixes against long‑term borrowing capacity.

At a briefing to the board, district finance staff outlined revenue and expense drivers. "We're going to talk about our proposed final budget for the 25‑26 school year," said Mr. Fink, who led the presentation, describing changes since the preliminary budget adopted in November. He told trustees that preliminary state estimates included modest increases in state subsidy lines (about $200,000 year‑over‑year in the general education subsidy and roughly $100,000 for special education), but that rising personnel costs and health‑insurance claims were the dominant pressures.

Fink said the district had incorporated several favorable adjustments — such as reduced PSERS rate assumptions and some departmental cost reductions — but that health insurance still required an added, multi‑million dollar provision after an actuarial "second look." "The big deal here is health insurance on the expense side of the budget," he said, adding later that health insurance rates had risen "almost a 20 plus percent increase year over year."

The presentation included other notable items: charter and cyber charter costs were described as an ongoing budget strain (the district cited roughly $15,000 per student as the typical cost when a student attends a charter school rather than a district building), and the business office flagged several recent commercial real‑estate assessment appeals that reduced projected assessment growth and could lower expected real‑estate tax revenue. Fink told trustees the district had already absorbed about a $1.1 million hit from one assessed property adjustment and that a further appeal could lead to an additional multi‑million dollar reduction in revenues that must be planned for.

Trustees pressed staff on timing and options. Finance Committee chair Theresa Westwood, participating by phone, reiterated that the district is pursuing both near‑term options and longer‑term efficiencies, saying the board and staff "continue to look at ways to save money for the district without trying to negatively impact outcomes for our students and our staff." Dr. Wright and other trustees emphasized the board has flexibility on timing: approving the proposed final budget tonight preserves the option to adopt a final budget in May or to continue work into June under state deadlines.

Fink walked trustees through a list of choices to close the gap: (1) use referendum exceptions permitted under Act 1; (2) apply a portion of the expected debt‑service drop; or (3) a combination of both. He noted that without the large commercial assessment appeals and the recent health‑insurance increase, the district would likely be below the Act 1 index.

Board action and next steps: By voting to adopt the proposed final budget for public posting, the board met an Act 1 procedural requirement and preserved scheduling flexibility for a final vote. Trustees said they will continue finance committee work and discussions with state representatives on subsidy assumptions; staff will return to the finance committee with updated figures ahead of the final adoption.

Public comment: Two local residents raised concerns during public comment about removal of a district "report card" policy and about the district's rising budget. Roland Olsen asked why the district had removed a metrics‑reporting policy and linked that concern to taxpayer oversight. Gary Wheaton of Upper Providence Township clarified the citizen's policy reference. Board chair and staff responded that the state ESSA report card remains publicly available on the district website and that the policy committee would revisit policy changes raised by the public.

What the vote did: Approving a proposed final budget is primarily a procedural step under Pennsylvania's Act 1 budget process. Trustees noted the vote does not fix the final tax rate and that final adoption can still be delayed within statutory limits.

The board's finance committee will meet again in May to refine numbers and consider how to close the gap before final adoption.