Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plum Borough SD audit clean, board votes to advance budget workshop and opt not to exceed Act 1 index
Summary
Auditors reported no findings for the 2024–25 fiscal year and the board advanced budget planning that recommends not exceeding the Act 1 index (4.7%). Members discussed debt, state adequacy funding and tradeoffs of raising taxes above the index.
The Plum Borough School District’s external auditors reported a clean set of financial statements for the 2024–25 fiscal year and no management letter during the board’s Dec. 9 meeting, while district leaders recommended not exceeding the Act 1 index of 4.7 percent as they opened the 2026 budget‑workshop cycle.
“A good news: there was no management letter issued this year,” Amy Lewis, the audit presenter, told the board, adding the audit produced three required reports covering the financial statements, internal control and single‑audit compliance for federal programs. Lewis said the general fund ended the year with a fund balance of about $16.6 million and that capital projects and debt activity were fully disclosed in the footnotes.
The superintendent and finance staff walked the board through the Act 1 calculations and long‑term budget drivers, noting the district’s adjusted Act 1 index is 4.7 percent (the statutory base is 3.5 percent). Administration highlighted roughly $575,000 in state adequacy funding that helped the district this year but cautioned that districts accepting those funds face restrictions: taking adequacy dollars can limit the ability to raise taxes above the statutory index without returning those funds.
“We are recommending not going above the Act 1 index of 4.7,” the superintendent said, emphasizing the board’s conservative approach while previewing a multi‑phase debt issuance and a timeline that expects a preliminary budget in April and final adoption in May.
Officials flagged other budget pressures including inflation, rising personnel costs and a planned layering of debt (administration described three rounds totaling roughly $30 million for school renovations). The audit presentation also noted the district’s PSERS retirement liability disclosure (reported as the district’s share in the financials).
The board moved to advance the audited financial statements so they could be signed and accepted; that motion was carried as part of routine action on consent items. Administration will return to the board in March with more detailed budget scenarios and any recommended adjustments.
The board’s next budget‑workshop meetings are scheduled during the normal budget timeline leading to the April preliminary and May final actions.
