Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Keystone Central board weighs tax‑rate options as health‑insurance costs spike
Loading...
Summary
The district’s business manager told the board a 19.9% health‑insurance renewal and other pressures contribute to a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall; board members gave preliminary preferences for tax increases ranging from 0% to 1.75% (and described other measures such as staffing studies and IU 10 proposals to offset the gap).
Keystone Central School District business manager Joni McIntyre told the board April 9 that the district is facing significant budget pressure driven in part by an insurance renewal that is effectively capped at 20 percent. McIntyre said the renewal translated to a budget increase she described as roughly $2.6 million and warned that, if current trends hold, the district could close the fiscal year with a materially reduced unassigned fund balance.
"We are actually right now at a 114%. If we close the year right now, that would mean we would owe about $834,000," McIntyre said during her presentation, in which she also modelled hypothetical millage increases and their effect on the projected shortfall.
Board members then went around the table to state where they were leaning on a possible real‑estate tax increase. Preferences expressed during the work session ranged from 0% at one end to as high as 1.75% — and the board chair noted a higher statutory cap option (3.5% under the Act 1 index) was available as another scenario. Several members said they preferred to pair any tax decision with additional measures: pursuing a staffing study, pursuing IU 10 proposals intended to re‑engage cyber‑charter students back to the district, and continuing to hunt for reductions in discretionary spending. One member warned that even the maximum legally allowable millage increase would not fully erase the projected shortfall without other adjustments.
Members repeatedly urged the business office to continue work on grant opportunities and to report back with more precise numbers and options at the voting session. No formal vote on a tax change occurred at the April 9 work session; the round‑robin statements were described by board leaders as a snapshot of member preferences to help staff prepare for the upcoming voting meeting.
Next steps: staff will refine projections, provide a clearer cost‑benefit comparison of staffing‑study timing and IU 10 options, and return budget details (including a roll‑up of committed and uncommitted fund balances) for board consideration at the district’s voting session.
