West York Area SD board questions York Techbudget increase and adjacent-property purchase
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Board members pressed York County School of Technology over a proposed 6.78% budget increase, transportation and staffing cost drivers, and a recommended adjacent-property purchase that carries $350,000 in estimated mitigation work, arguing the package could deplete reserves and should be reworked.
The West York Area School District Board on an administrative meeting day reviewed multiple regional education budgets and flagged concerns about a proposed York County School of Technology budget increase and an associated property purchase.
Board discussion centered on a York Tech budget the board representative described as seeking a 6.78% increase for 2026'17, driven in part by 5% act 93 salary adjustments and a roughly 20% rise in transportation costs tied to the addition of four buses. "I did vote no at both authorities," said Director Geddes, who added he found the 6.78% request "unsustainable" and recommended the budget be sent back to administration for reworking.
The discussion also examined how seat allocation and acceptance rates are distributed across sending districts. Director Geddes and others noted acceptance rates vary widely (districts cited in the discussion included Red Lion and York City), and that seat allocation follows a methodology involving interviews and a rotating draft. President Rice, who said he serves on the York Adams Academy board, defended that programas a valuable, diploma-granting pathway while acknowledging modest per-seat cost increases.
A key flashpoint was a proposed adjacent property purchase tied to York Tech operations. The board representative described the property price as $1,500,000 and said inspection uncovered about $350,000 in mitigation needs (foundation and water work), which would raise effective acquisition costs to approximately $1,850,000. "During the inspection process, they uncovered $350,000 worth of mitigation expenses that the property would need to be incurred before we could send students there," the representative said, adding concerns that leases on the site could extend up to eight years and delay district use.
Board members also questioned revenue assumptions tied to the acquisition. The representative said the plan projects up to $1,000,000 in tenant revenue to offset the purchase but indicated only about $310,000 is guaranteed within three years. He warned the purchase could erode York Tech's cash reserves; he estimated a prior $4,000,000 fund balance could fall by about 47% with the acquisition and additional HVAC work.
Other board members called for alternatives, including reorganizing program delivery or seeking outside revenue partners (for example, local health systems for medical-program space), rather than acquiring new real estate. Board members emphasized the districthas limited control over acceptance decisions at York Tech and that contributions can rise when the district sends more students; the board was told West York saw 10 student move-ins in 2024'25 who attended York Tech, which contributed to a 17% increase in West York's 2025'26 contribution rate.
No final board vote on the York Tech budget or the property acquisition was recorded in the meeting transcript; several members said they intended to vote "no" unless the proposal were reworked. The representative urged formation of a finance committee or further conversations if the budget is returned for revision.
Next steps: the board asked administration for additional information, and some members urged sending the York Tech budget back to the authority for revisions before a final West York Area SD action.
