Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bethlehem Area School District approves preliminary 2025-26 budget package, board authorizes fund-balance use
Summary
The Bethlehem Area School District board on June 9 voted to approve the administration's personnel attachment, the preliminary 2025-26 budget and the Homestead/Farmstead exclusion, while staff said the budget relies on conservative revenue assumptions and a roughly $5.7 million fund-balance draw amid state and federal funding uncertainty.
The Bethlehem Area School District board on June 9 approved three administration recommendations — the personnel attachment (item 701), the preliminary 2025-26 budget (item 702) and the Homestead/Farmstead exclusion (item 703) — by voice roll call.
Superintendent-designate and administrators told the board the budget is being prepared amid substantial state and federal funding uncertainty. Chief financial staff said the district modeled conservatively — using 100% of the governor's Basic Education Funding (BEF) and Special Education Funding (SEF) proposals and 50% of an adequacy proposal — and expects to balance the preliminary budget using about $5,700,000 from the district's fund balance.
Administration members warned that the commonwealth is unlikely to pass a state budget before September and that federal allocations were not yet finalized. “We don't even have our federal allocation,” a district presenter said during the presentation, noting the district may need to revisit the budget if state or federal revenues differ from the assumptions used.
Board members pressed on staffing effects. Administrators said the budget protects classroom positions and that reductions are expected to come from attrition and nonclassroom, professional-support roles rather than by moving staff out of classroom roles. “We try to protect the learning in the classroom as the last alternative for reductions,” a district presenter said.
Board members acknowledged the difficulty of choices the administration recommended. One member said the 4.3% proposed real-estate tax increase was unwelcome but necessary under the current assumptions and recommended actions, adding the administration had already cut deeper than in many prior years.
The motion to approve items 701–703 passed on a roll-call vote recorded during the meeting; the board recorded the motion as carried.
What happens next: board members and staff said they will revisit the budget once the commonwealth and federal allocations are finalized; if state funding is lower than budgeted the district said it would likely need to reopen the budget, potentially early in the school year.
Votes-at-a-glance: The board recorded a roll-call in which the following named members voted “yes” on the package: Doctor Shively; Missus Patrick; Doctor Beck Pulley; Doctor White; Mister Ricciutti; Mister Facchinato; Mister Lozzi; Missus Schenkel. The motion outcome was recorded as approved.
Budget clarifications captured in the meeting: the district used conservative revenue assumptions (100% BEF/SEF, 50% adequacy), did not model additional cyber-charter adjustments, assumed a 4.3% real-estate tax increase, and planned to draw approximately $5,700,000 from fund balance to balance the preliminary budget.
Board members reiterated that if the state budget is later-than-expected or lower-than-expected, the district may need to reopen the budget and make additional adjustments.
