Bensalem Township SD presents $188.2 million 2025–26 budget and three tax scenarios; business director recommends 2–3% path

Bensalem Township School District business staff on Tuesday presented a proposed $188,248,371 2025–26 general fund budget and asked the school board to give direction on a proposed-final millage rate that will be put on public display ahead of final adoption in June.

The proposed budget would increase expenditures by about $7,000,871 (just under 4%) from the current year, primarily to add seven teaching positions and to cover higher salaries, benefits and special-education costs, district staff said. The business director recommended a steady 2–3% annual tax-increase path, saying smaller, consistent increases would reduce the chance of large, disruptive hikes later.

Why it matters: the board must approve a proposed-final budget for public display before the final adoption. The choice of millage — including the option of no increase — affects projected use of the district’s fund balance, the district’s long-term financial flexibility and taxpayers’ bills.

Mr. Steffey, the district’s director of business operations, told the board the 2025–26 spending plan is largely a maintenance budget except for seven added teaching positions and contract-driven salary changes. He said the draft budget totals $188,248,371 and that projected revenues under the no-tax-increase scenario are $180,521,083, producing a projected shortfall if no millage is raised.

The presentation laid out three scenarios the board discussed: no tax increase; a 2.4% increase (described as 50% of the Act 1 index in this presentation); and the full Act 1 index of 4.8%. Under the full 4.8% scenario, staff showed a projected book shortage of about $1.8 million but said typical timing and collection patterns often reduce that gap; staff estimated the district could be roughly break-even or slightly positive after usual revenue and expenditure variances. The 2.4% scenario showed a projected shortage of about $4.4 million; the 0% scenario showed a projected shortage on a book basis of $7,127,000, though Mr. Steffey said the likely draw from fund balance under a 0% scenario would be closer to $2–4 million.

Mr. Steffey said the district typically does not spend every dollar budgeted (historically about 99–101% of revenues and about 99% of budgeted expenditures are realized), so the “book value” shortfalls are conservative estimates.

State aid and homestead/Gaming funds: the presentation factored in roughly half of a state “Ready to Learn” block-grant increase (Mr. Steffey said half of the roughly $1.7 million increase was included, or $876,853). He also said the district will receive larger homestead/gaming allocations this year and that the state’s increase is expected to reduce the effective tax change for homestead-approved properties. Staff estimated an increase in the district’s gaming/homestead distribution from about $3.437 million this year to an estimated $3.955 million next year; staff told the board the additional gaming funds would reduce tax bills for homestead-approved properties by about $45 per year under the distribution change, while the homestead exemption itself can reduce an individual homeowner’s bill by “well over $300” if they have not already applied.

Pension and charter costs: presenters emphasized longer-term pressure from PSERS (the Pennsylvania public pension system). Mr. Steffey outlined a multi-year projection in which the district employer PSERS rate rises from about 33.9% this year to roughly 37.1% in several years, which would add several million dollars in district costs. He also noted that charter tuition rises increase district costs, and under the state formula roughly 17% of certain increases pass through to charter operators, increasing the district’s charter outlay when salaries and pensions grow.

Fund balance and capital: general fund balance was reported at $13,026,901 as of June 30, 2024; the capital reserve stood at about $6.8 million on that date (staff noted that several roofing and HVAC projects have drawn from capital reserve). The presentation described a bond plan of about $20 million to cover paving, roof and HVAC/geothermal projects and said the capital reserve would not fully cover the high school HVAC/geothermal project without bond proceeds.

Enrollment and staffing: staff described recent enrollment trends, noting a projected cohort decline that will reduce future high-school cohorts (one class of about 611 students was highlighted). The seven new teaching positions in the proposed budget include three secondary math positions and four elementary/support positions (one autistic-support teacher and positions at Rush, Belmont and Valley elementary schools); Mr. Steffey said some of those positions reflect conversions from long-term substitute assignments that were added after the budget was adopted.

Board direction and next steps: board members asked for additional scenarios. The business office agreed to prepare and advertise three proposed-final budget scenarios for the board to place on public display: 0%, 2.4% and 3% (the business director said he would personally recommend a minimum of 2.4% and would favor 3%). The board must place a proposed-final on public display for at least 20 days before final adoption; staff said the board’s next meeting will include the adoption of a proposed-final budget and a public Q&A, with final adoption scheduled for the June meeting.

Formal action: the meeting concluded with the routine motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote.