Chester‑Upland School District budget presentation outlines $3 million shortfall; Act 1 cap limits tax increase

Miss Gathers, budget presenter for the Chester‑Upland School District, told community members the district is proposing the 2025–26 budget amid a roughly $3 million operating shortfall and a set of ongoing cost pressures.

The shortfall grows to about $3.5 million when the district applies its historical collection ratio — it collects approximately 86% of billed revenue, Miss Gathers said. “The question is really not if we’re gonna raise taxes. The question is how much,” she said.

The proposed budget presented by Miss Gathers shows revenue of about $170 million and expenses of about $173 million in the draft figures discussed at the meeting. Major expense categories highlighted included roughly $73 million for charter school payments, about $51 million for personnel, $11 million for debt obligations and $7.6 million for transportation. Charter school payments remain the largest single expense item and have increased year over year.

Miss Gathers listed several drivers behind the shortfall: the scheduled end of ESSER (federal COVID‑relief) funding that had supported facilities and programming; a reported 7% increase in health insurance premiums that she said equates to nearly $4 million; a reported 15% increase in liability insurance (property, casualty and workers’ compensation) that she said equates to about a half‑million dollars; and litigation and contract issues tied to some charter agreements. She also cited the announced closure of Crozer Medical Center as an exposure of about $2 million in local tax revenue for the district this year. “The exposure for this year alone is $2,000,000,” she said.

Miss Gathers explained how the Act 1 index limits local revenue raising: under the Act 1 index the district can increase tax rates by up to 6.3% without additional voter or procedural steps. She said a 6.3% increase would generate approximately $1.369 million for the district, leaving a remaining funding gap of roughly $2.6 million under the current assumptions. Using the district’s stated assumptions, Miss Gathers said covering the full shortfall would require tax increases in the mid‑teens percentage range for Chester City and nearly 17% for other parts of the district — increases that exceed the Act 1 cap.

Miss Gathers and attendees discussed local property values and collection dynamics that constrain revenue. She said the district’s median assessed home value is roughly $60,000 and that more than 4,000 properties in the district qualify for the homestead exemption; both factors reduce the local tax base. Using the example offered in the presentation, Miss Gathers said a home assessed at $125,000 in Chester City would face an annual tax increase of about $113.16 at the maximum allowable rate, while a home at the district median of $60,000 would see a roughly $50 annual increase.

On revenues, Miss Gathers presented the district’s major sources as local taxes (about $22 million), state funding (reported in the presentation as about $139 million) and federal funds (about $8 million). She also discussed state programs referenced in the presentation, including a “ready to learn” block and federal Title programs (Title I–IV) and summarized their intended uses — classroom supports, teacher recruitment and professional development, English learner services and student support programming.

Discussion at the meeting touched on enrollment trends and the district’s efforts to bolster local enrollment. Miss Gathers said enrollment has grown from roughly 2,700 students in 2020–21 to about 3,200 students currently, and that adding students reduces per‑student pressure on the local tax base because charter payments are made for students who leave the district. “If we get 10 students, that’s $500,000; or a hundred, $1.3 million depending on classification,” she said.

Miss Gathers noted facility investments of about $7.9 million over the last year, most funded by ESSER dollars and grants, and said the district has reduced outstanding payables from more than $4 million in 2022 to roughly $1.5 million this year. She also reported improvements in the accounts payable cycle (from multi‑month delays to approximately 60 days).

Multiple community members asked clarifying questions during the presentation about Crozer’s tax impact, whether certain one‑time reimbursements (charter/cyber reimbursements) were included in the proposed figures, and how increased insurance costs would be handled during staff contract negotiations. Miss Gathers said the budget presented is preliminary and that staff will continue to refine revenue assumptions and follow up on outstanding figures before the final submission. She stated the district expects to finalize the budget in about three weeks from the presentation.

No formal vote or tax rate adoption occurred at the meeting; the presentation was described as the proposed budget and staff said they will return with updated figures.

Ending: The district framed the budget decision as one of balancing continued investments in student programs and facilities against constrained local revenue and capped tax‑increase authority. School leaders announced open houses and enrollment efforts intended to attract students back to district schools, and said staff will return with a revised proposed budget in the coming weeks.