Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the District Budget Enrollment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Abington previews 2025–26 budget and staffing: 4% tax increase proposed, modest staffing reductions via attrition

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff presented projected enrollment and a draft 2025–26 general fund budget that would raise real estate taxes 4% (millage to 38.55) and reduce staff counts primarily through retirements. The board was told the allocated fund balance needed would fall to $7.9 million under the draft budget.

At the May 27 meeting, Abington School District administrators presented projected enrollment and a draft general fund budget for fiscal year 2025–26 that includes a proposed 4% real-estate tax increase, staffing adjustments and a lower draw on fund balance.

“Revenue was at $195,100,000. Expenses were at $204,900,000, and the allocated fund balance needed was $9,700,000,” business staff said when summarizing the earlier May 13 presentation. Budget managers reduced proposed expenses by $2,000,000, trimming the projected expense line to $202,800,000 and lowering the allocated fund-balance need to $7,900,000, the presentation said.

The updated budget would raise real estate taxes by the maximum allowable 4%, increasing the millage to 38.55 and generating about $4.1 million in additional real estate tax revenue, staff said. State revenue was projected to rise about 6.08% based on the governor's recommendations for basic education, special education and PSR subsidies; federal revenue declined by about $687,000 chiefly because ESSER pandemic funds have ended.

On the expense side, salaries were projected to increase 2.54% (about $2.4 million) and mandated benefits rose roughly $1.3 million (a 3.38% increase) because of changes in retirement contribution percentages. Non-salary, non-benefit expenses were decreased about $1.2 million. The presentation showed an estimated end-of-year fund balance for 2024–25 of $16.6 million under current projections and $8.6 million for the updated 2025–26 budget scenario.

Administrators also presented enrollment projections that show a small net decrease in K–12 enrollment (from 8,402 reported Oct. 1 to a projected 8,358) and school-by-school projections used to recommend staffing adjustments. Based on projected enrollments, the district recommended a net decrease of five general-education teachers at the elementary level, four at the middle level and a net minus-two at the high school level; district leaders said most reductions would be achieved through attrition and retirements and that no layoffs were planned.

The presentation included an explicit staffing addition: the senior high school would move from 1.5 to 2 full-time librarians. Administrators also recommended a net decrease of two elementary special-education staff positions while flagging a “gray box” — a placeholder — for possible additional senior-high special-education staffing to serve an 18–22 age cohort depending on parent decisions and enrollment.

Board members praised budget managers for finding $2 million in savings. One board member asked for confirmation that the staffing reductions would come from retirements rather than layoffs; administrators said that was correct. The board is scheduled to be asked to adopt the final 2025–26 general fund budget at its June 24 meeting and to consider a resolution to implement the homestead exclusion if the state property-tax relief fund provides sufficient funds, staff said.

No formal votes on the budget were taken at the May 27 meeting; the presentation was given for information and to allow board members to ask questions ahead of the June 24 adoption vote.