Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business manager outlines 2025–26 preliminary budget; $3.5 million shortfall cited without final tax rate
Summary
Mark Glynn, the district business official, presented the preliminary expenditure budget timeline and a projected shortfall of roughly $3.5 million at current assumptions; he urged the board to monitor expected new assessment and transfer-tax revenue from a 176-unit residential development that could substantially offset the gap.
Mark Glynn, the district's business official, presented the 2025–26 preliminary expenditure budget to the board on Jan. 7 and outlined the schedule for adoption, application for Act 1 referendum exceptions and final budget approval in June.
Glynn presented the district's projected budget pressures and said the early-stage shortfall under current assumptions is about $3.5 million. "So here's our act 1 index number... Our projected shortfall is about $3,500,000," he said on the record.
Why it matters: The shortfall reflects known cost drivers — salary and benefits (about 65% of the budget), rising health-care renewal projections (Glynn referenced a first-pass 19.2% renewal), negotiated salaries and special-education growth — and the board must decide whether to apply for referendum exceptions or use fund balance and other one-time revenues.
Revenue considerations: Glynn highlighted a major local development (176 units, single-family style townhomes) that has the potential to produce one-time transfer-tax payments and new assessed value. He cautioned that one property settlement produced an assessed value of $288,160 despite a $1.1 million sale price and explained county assessment methodology and common-level ratio impacts. Glynn used a conservative assessment estimate of $250,000 per unit in his initial model but said if units settle at assessments similar to the first settled property, the district could see about $1.8 million in new recurring tax revenue.
Sources and uses: Glynn said the district has roughly $3.0 million available in the capital improvements fund after paying certain contract obligations, with an approximate cushion (district staff said they expect about $3.5 million but cautioned some items remain to be paid). He also said $60,000 in DCED reimbursement is pending and the district has applied to state legislators to seek inclusion of PECO-related reimbursements in the governor's budget.
Next steps and board timing: Glynn recommended approving a preliminary expenditure budget at the January meeting (a requirement for the Act 1 exception application process), refining revenue and use assumptions through spring, and bringing a proposed final budget in April and final tax-rate adoption in June. He said he will provide the board with "menu options" that outline tradeoffs for capital transfers and other budget choices.
Board questions: Members asked for greater clarity on the timing of unit settlements and expected one-time transfer-tax revenue. Glynn said that permit and sales activity indicate units will come online across 2024–25 and 2025 but urged caution and conservative budgeting for next fiscal year.
Ending: Glynn said staff will continue to monitor the development's assessment and sales activity and return to the board with updated revenue projections and a sources-and-uses slide before any decisive action on tax rate or capital transfers.
