Gettysburg Area School District board approves 1% real-estate tax increase after 1.5% proposal fails

The Gettysburg Area School District Board of Directors approved a 2025–26 general fund budget funded by a 1% real-estate tax increase after failing to pass a 1.5% proposal earlier in the meeting.

The board voted 5–3 to adopt the 1% rate, a motion that followed debate about administrator pay, program funding and one-time uses of capital funds. Board members repeatedly said they wanted to avoid a larger tax spike later; opponents said the higher 1.5% proposal was too large to ask taxpayers to absorb now.

The district’s administration recommended the 1.5% increase initially; several board members said the higher rate would give the district more flexibility to meet longer-term needs. Others argued a 1% increase would still provide additional operating funds while limiting immediate taxpayer impact. After the 1.5% motion failed, the board approved the 1% motion by roll call with the president and five board members voting yes and three voting no.

The vote followed earlier board action to approve an Act 93 administrators compensation agreement (personnel item separated for a roll call). That agreement — which district materials described as raising administrator pay — was approved by roll call after discussion and at least one board member said she could not support the level of increases reflected in the personnel report.

Board members also discussed a $25,000 change related to the Gettysburg Area Education Foundation (GAEF) that had been displayed on a prior meeting slide. Members sought clarity about whether that deduction was a board directive built into the budget or an administrative drafting note. The business office told the board that changing that line item would require updating budget documents and appropriation forms before a final signature; however, the board was told it could adopt the overall budget and issue a directive to staff to preserve the $25,000 for GAEF (or otherwise reallocate within the approved totals) after the vote.

Belinda (business office staff) and district leadership (identified in meeting discussion as Dr. Perrin and Dr. Matzner) fielded several questions about fund balances, audits and how prior-year surpluses are treated. Board members noted that audit-year surpluses have historically rolled into the following year’s budget reconciliation rather than being advanced as revenue for the coming year.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the district’s need to maintain program stability while meeting contractual obligations. One board member urged the board to consider using capital reserve or contingency accounts to accommodate a $25,000 program allocation if members wanted to preserve that funding without changing the tax rate on the table.

The board president said the administration and business office had prepared detailed budget forecasts and that federal funding levels remain an uncertain variable for future years.

The board also set the formal tax resolutions and took subsequent ministerial votes tied to adoption (establishment of taxes; homestead and farmstead exclusion resolution; and a year-end transfer from the capital projects fund), all of which passed on roll call following the budget vote.

Ending: The board concluded votes on the budget and related tax resolutions and then moved through remaining action items on the agenda.