Ferguson Township reviews draft 2026 budget after resident flags fund-balance gaps

Ferguson Township supervisors continued discussion of the draft 2026 operating budget Tuesday evening after a resident raised detailed concerns about how projected year-end fund balances were carried forward into the next fiscal year.

David Gordon, addressing the board during public comment, said the budget document was “not a very resident friendly document” and walked supervisors through several line-item comparisons between the PDF and web versions of the budget. Gordon identified discrepancies he said appear between projected 2025 year-end fund balances and the 2026 beginning balances in the general fund, the general obligation fund and the park improvement fund, and he urged staff to ensure consistent carryforward accounting. “If you look at the projected end fund balance, it is referenced as $10,993,798.28. But the beginning balance for 2026 is $10,600,688.26 — that’s a $393,110.02 difference,” Gordon said.

Gordon also focused on fire-related revenue and assessments. He cited the proposed 1-mill fire services tax in the 2026 draft, which the budget document estimates would generate about $616,117, and questioned whether that levy would duplicate current general-fund spending on volunteer fire contributions and hydrant expenditures. He asked how the existing hydrant assessment fund (which Gordon said shows a $63,479 balance in the 2026 numbers) would be used and whether property owners who previously paid hydrant assessments should receive a credit.

Township staff acknowledged the public comment and offered to follow up. The township manager said staff would sit down with the commenter and the finance director, and provide a written memo or an update at a future meeting addressing the points raised. “I’d like to be able to sit down with our finance director and review each of these comments, and then I’m happy to provide either response or an update to the board,” the manager said.

Finance director Todd Grady then presented line-item explanations for the 2026 draft, including differences between web and PDF versions of the document and several anticipated COG-related increases (notably in the COG fire contribution, parks and senior center). Grady and police leadership also described personnel drivers in departmental budgets — notably a 5% wage increase in collective bargaining that feeds into overtime, longevity and benefit calculations — and explained several capital and software costs embedded in the CIP and departmental budgets.

Supervisors flagged several items for the next work session, including: three patrol vehicles in the CIP, aging radio replacements in public works that are interoperable with Centre County Emergency Services, seal-coating of parking lots and bike paths, and parks projects that include a Kaboom!/DCNR playground replacement and Phase 2 of Cecil Irvin Park (the latter cited in staff notes at roughly $1.1 million with an approximately 50% DCNR/Land and Water Conservation Fund match). Staff was asked to return Thursday with clarifying memos and proposed directions so the board can decide which flagged items to accept, modify or delay.

The board scheduled a four-hour follow-up session Thursday to work through flagged items and final budget directions. No formal budget adoption occurred at the special meeting; staff will provide follow-up materials for the next session.