Abington SD draft budget proposes 3.8% tax increase; board to seek voter approval for $285 million middle school referendum

The Abington Board of School Directors on March 11 reviewed an initial draft of the 2025–26 general fund budget that would raise the property tax millage from 37.07 to 38.55 mills, an increase the district calculated as roughly 3.86%. District business staff said the change would increase real-estate tax revenue by about $4,000,000 and raise total local revenue to an estimated $143,800,000 for 2025–26.

Why it matters: The draft ties near-term property-tax increases to the district's operating needs and to a planned May referendum that, if approved by voters, would fund a proposed $285,000,000 new middle school. Administrators said the referendum borrowing would be phased to match design and construction schedules and that debt service mills dedicated to the project would be structured so bond proceeds and related taxes are aligned with the project's cash needs.

District numbers and assumptions: Mr. Vittoria, who led the budget presentation, said the draft uses the Act 1 index to calculate the 4% allowable increase and that state, county and federal revenues are forecast using the latest guidance from the governor and PDE. He presented the draft revenue and expense figures: beginning fund balance $10,400,000 (audited 2024-25 starting balance was $21,600,000); local revenue $143,800,000; state revenue $49,500,000; federal revenue $2,200,000 (a decrease of about $687,000 compared with the prior year because ESSER pandemic funds are ending); total expenses $205,500,000; and an allocated fund balance use of $9,800,000 under the baseline scenario. Staff also showed an alternate scenario that assumes a smaller 2024-25 fund-balance use ($5,000,000), which would raise the projected 2025-26 beginning balance and reduce the budgeted use of reserves.

On pension costs, Vittoria said employer contribution rates to the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) have risen sharply over the past decade and that the projected employer contribution for 2025-26 is about 34%, increasing the district's mandated-benefit line to roughly $42,700,000 in the draft.

How the tax change would affect taxpayers: Presenting a model assessment of $141,130, the administration said the millage increase would raise taxes by $208.87 before homestead/property-relief adjustments and by $182.87 after an estimated homestead credit. Officials also walked through estimated impacts on low-income seniors (some income tiers would see little or no increase).

Referendum timing and effect: Mr. Leonetti, speaking about the proposed middle school, said the $285 million figure represents a planning-phase estimate and that borrowing would likely be phased to match design, professional-services payments and construction draws. "We don't need $280,000,000 immediately," Leonetti said; "there's a time schedule associated with a project like this, 12 to 18 months of planning ... and then even construction over a 3 year period." Leonetti added the district will work with its financial advisor and bond counsel to determine the borrowing strategy and timing.

Board process: Administrators said there was no action requested that night. They told the board they will review revenue and expense details on April 22 and on May 13 will ask the board to approve three resolutions: (1) adopt the proposed 2025–26 general fund budget, (2) adopt the board's intent to adopt the budget on June 24, and (3) authorize advertisement of the board's intent to adopt on June 24. Mr. Vittoria said staff will return with updated numbers in May after final state and county assessments are known.

Public comment and board reaction: During public comment, callers and residents expressed divided views. Michelle Cooper, who said she is a parent, urged a "yes" vote on May 20, calling a new middle school the "smartest investment" and saying renovation would cost roughly as much while causing four years of disruption. By contrast, Joe Rooney and other speakers urged caution on the bond question and said the district should prioritize classroom instruction and reading/math interventions before committing to large-scale borrowing. Board members asked detailed budget questions about contingency, vacancy savings and the composition of federal revenue changes; administrators said some decreases reflect the end of one-time ESSER funds and that state allocations will be clearer in May.

Next steps: The budget review continues; the board will see revised revenue estimates in late April and is scheduled to consider formal resolutions on May 13 that would set up a June public-adoption timeline and a May 20 referendum vote on the middle-school borrowing.