Centennial School District previews 2025–26 budget, flags $934,600 special-education reconciliation and continued pressure from labor costs

Centennial School District called a special budget work session Thursday, Jan. 30, to review preliminary projections for the 2025–26 fiscal year, explain last year’s year-end transfers and reconciliations, and begin five-year capital and operating planning for 2026–2030.

Mister Greenwood, the district administrator presenting the budget, opened with an overview of fiscal 2024 results and the draft 2025–26 projection, saying the district ended the year with a better-than-expected net position and had transferred $3,000,000 from the general fund to the debt-service fund as a year-end entry. He told the board the district’s tax-collection rate finished the year at about 97.4% and that the draft 2026 budget shows expense growth of about 3.52% compared with the current budget, creating a projected deficit because revenues are projected to rise by less than 1%.

The presentation highlighted several items that will affect the near-term budget: a $934,600 special-education reconciliation owed to the Bucks County Intermediate Unit (BCIU); continued escalation in medical-benefit costs and substitute/paraprofessional spending (professional substitutes grew about 8.3%); and assumptions built into the five-year model such as a 4% Act 1 index for 2026 and a 0.5% annual increase in assessed value. Greenwood said the district will show the $934,600 as an offsetting revenue when possible because of the timing of the IU billing, but noted the reconciliation will have to be recognized in financials if unpaid by December.

Board members and administrators discussed contract and compensation assumptions. Greenwood said the district’s projection incorporates the CEA (teacher) contract average increase of about 3.75% and an assumed 3% increase for support staff and Act 93 administrators for planning purposes. He also reminded the board that some current agreements specify only a 1% increase and that the Act 93 agreement expires this June. “Those expenses stay there,” Greenwood said, urging multi-year planning: “It is imperative that we look beyond one year.”

Board member Mister Hartline pressed for priorities and for limiting tax increases where possible, saying the board generally does not want to “raise taxes any more than we have to.” Hartline and other members called for focused department-level reviews, especially of special education costs and out-of-district placements, to identify potential efficiencies without reducing services to students.

Mister Sadowski, a member of the operations committee, praised the district’s capital planning progress and the creation of a debt-service fund, saying the committee’s approach has allowed the district to “get ahead” of maintenance needs and avoid rushed, costly emergency repairs. Greenwood detailed recent capital work including middle school auditorium renovations, stadium and transportation improvements, and vehicle replacements.

Administrators also discussed grants and one-time funding. Greenwood cited the end of ESSER funds and said the district had directed prior federal pandemic-era resources toward direct instructional supports. He noted the district actively applies for grants — mentioning the PCCD Safety and Security grant and bus-replacement grants that could help replace older diesel buses — but reminded the board that grants are not recurring revenue and should be used for one-time investments. A staff member, Ms. Gabriel, explained that federal formula (Title) funding is recalculated periodically and that movement in local poverty rates and statewide adjustments can change allocations.

On revenue assumptions, Greenwood said local revenue is the largest source (roughly 74% of total revenue in the district model), the state provides about 25%, and federal sources account for roughly $1.5 million in the draft (about $1.0 million in Title funding and $0.5 million in medical-assistance funding). He noted the district accepted an accelerated opt-out resolution the previous week that caps the Act 1 increase the district will use in its planning.

The work session closed after about an hour of discussion. Mister Robertson moved to adjourn; the board voted in favor and the meeting ended.

Why this matters: Greenwood and the board framed the draft 2025–26 budget as the start of a multi-month process that hinges on state and federal budget actions, labor negotiations, and choices about using one-time fund balance to support capital needs versus recurring operating costs. The presentation emphasized the district’s improved fund balance compared with earlier years but warned that relying on fund balance year after year is not sustainable.

Forecast and next steps: Administrators will do department-level budget reviews in February and present further work sessions on Feb. 27. The board plans to finalize the 2025–26 budget by May 31, pending the governor’s budget and contract negotiations.

(Article produced from Centennial School District special budget work-session remarks and board discussion recorded Jan. 30.)