Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Decisions Budget Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York City SD board adopts 2025‑26 general fund budget; consent items and policies approved with abstentions
Summary
At its May meeting, the School District of the City of York board approved the proposed 2025‑26 general fund budget and multiple consent items. The budget passed by roll call with one no vote and one absence; several consent items passed with abstentions and a brief debate about fund‑balance guidance.
The School District of the City of York board approved the district’s proposed general fund budget for the 2025‑26 school year at its May meeting and adopted a number of consent agenda items and policies.
On agenda item 6a, the proposed general fund budget for 2025‑26 was approved by roll call. The vote, taken after a motion and second, recorded the following: Director Thompson — Yes; Director Phillips — Yes; Director Breeland — Yes; Director Glover Brown — Yes; Director Ligon — Yes; Vice President Leonard — Yes; Director Orr — Yes; Justice Kooten — No. President Kennedy was absent. The motion passed.
Other board actions
- WellSpan Health agreement (consent item 8AE): The board approved the agreement. Director Soupler abstained from this vote, citing a family member’s employment with the provider; the motion carried.
- Solicitor contract for 2025‑26 and board secretary appointment (consent items 8AF and 8BB): Both items were approved after board discussion about posting and transparency for those roles; the motions carried with no recorded opposition.
- Policy 620 (fund balance) (item 8BJ): Board members debated a proposed guideline range for the district fund balance. Discussion referred to state guidance and different percentage targets (board members referenced 6%, 8% and being “closer to 10%”). After discussion and a motion to table that failed to carry, the policy was approved by the board.
- Personnel/appointment item (8CD): A board member abstained from this personnel‑related vote because of an immediate family relationship to a candidate; the item was approved with the abstention noted.
Context and comments
Board members raised transparency concerns during discussion of contracts and appointments. One director said items should be posted earlier so interested applicants could apply; another board member referenced prior executive‑session conversations on the topics. District legal counsel observed that the specific fund‑balance percentage ranges under discussion were not items he recalled as being dictated by school code: “I don’t I don’t believe those ranges are in the school code. I would have to review that again,” he said.
The board also received a separate presentation on the Pre‑K Counts program during the meeting (reporting expanded enrollment and attendance), but no formal budget action was tied to that presentation at the meeting.
Minutes and procedural notes
The board approved the April 16 meeting minutes by voice vote earlier in the meeting. Several consent‑agenda items were pulled for separate discussion before the board approved the remaining consent items.
Formal recorded actions from the meeting follow below.
