Mr. Cooney, the meeting presenter, told the Oxford Area School District board at its April 8 work session that the administration proposes a $91.6 million general fund budget for 2025-26 and that the finance committee is recommending a 4 percent millage increase to support it. "Tonight, we're gonna go over the 25-26 proposed budget for Oxford Area School District General Fund for next year," he said.

The presentation outlined why the district's costs are rising and what the proposed tax scenarios would mean for taxpayers. The district closed the 2023-24 fiscal year with a stronger-than-expected fund balance — about $9.7 million rather than an earlier estimate near $6.5 million — but staff said ongoing cost drivers make the 25-26 forecast higher than recent years. "We're in better financial position than we put up," Cooney said, while cautioning the forecast depends on revenues and expenses through mid-2026.

Key numbers and context: the administration showed a range of millage scenarios with the finance committee recommending a 4 percent increase; in that scenario the district still would budget to appropriate roughly $5.2 million of fund balance for 2025-26 under current assumptions. The proposed budget total for 2025-26 was presented at about $91.06 million (rounded in presentation to $91.6 million in several slides). The district reported taxable assessed value growth from about $1.1 billion in 2020 to roughly $1.228 billion in 2025; the presentation gave an average assessed home value near $129,000 and a current average district tax bill just over $4,800. Under the 4 percent scenario the presentation showed an example increase of about $192 a year for a household at the stated average assessed value.

Why costs are rising: presenters and board members identified three principal drivers. First, charter school tuition and out‑of‑district placements increased: the district noted charter tuition rates rose by double digits (presented as about 19 percent for regular education tuition and about 14 percent for special education tuition over a recent period) and reported charter/out‑of‑district tuition budgeting rising from roughly $8.8 million in the current year to about $10.2 million in the proposed budget. Second, special‑education services procured through the intermediate unit (IU/CCIU) are increasing; the presentation described IU‑related tuition and professional services rising year over year and flagged an additional roughly $300,000 increase tied to occupational education enrollment trends. Third, transportation costs are expected to jump when the district's multiyear contract is renegotiated; the presenter said market rates for a typical 72‑passenger bus are substantially higher than the district's current contract and estimated a possible roughly $720,000 increase to transportation costs under a market‑rate contract, while noting administration will look for route consolidation opportunities.

Enrollment and structural effects: the district reported enrollment declines compared with earlier years, including a notable drop in students attending cyber programs and smaller incoming kindergarten classes compared with graduating classes. Board members warned that declining enrollment can raise per‑pupil tuition and fixed cost pressure because many district expenses are not easily reduced in the short term. One board member said the district has seen a multi‑year decline in student counts (discussed in the meeting as a roughly several‑hundred student decline compared with pre‑COVID years) and urged the board to consider staffing and program implications if that trend continues.

State and federal revenue notes: the presentation assumed a partial share of proposed state funding increases in the current state budget proposal (presenters used roughly half of the proposed state increases in their projection) and noted federal COVID relief (ESSER) funding has ended, reducing one revenue source by nearly $1.8 million compared with prior years. Presenters also noted a proposed state cap on cyber tuition being discussed at the state level that, if enacted, could materially reduce charter tuition outflows.

Board discussion and next steps: the finance committee recommended a 4 percent millage increase; the board discussed the tradeoffs of using fund balance now versus raising revenue annually to keep reserves at healthier levels. A board member who identified himself as the board treasurer framed the choice as a fiduciary one and urged transparency on recurring tax increases to avoid a low reserve position. No final vote was taken at the April 8 work session. The administration said it will present the proposed budget in the required PDE-2028 format, publish the required 30‑day public notice and bring the proposal to a vote at an upcoming meeting (the presenter cited a May board meeting schedule for the formal adoption vote).