Bensalem Township SD confronts roughly $12 million shortfall; board weighs tax increase, debt restructuring and cuts

Bensalem Township School District officials on the night of the budget workshop laid out a roughly $11.7 million funding gap after proposed reductions and discussed a suite of measures — a 4.2% property-tax proposal, debt restructuring and program changes — to close it.

At the start of the presentation, the district’s finance presenter, Mr. Steffey, said the draft budget began at slightly more than $204,000,000 in expenditures and that about $5,000,000 in proposed cuts had been identified, bringing the proposed total down to $198,770,000. He said projected revenues before any tax increase were roughly $187,062,000, leaving an immediate shortfall of about $11,700,000. "If we were to increase taxes to 4.2% that would generate $4,576,000," Mr. Steffey said, and he outlined a bond-restructuring option that would reduce a June 10 payment by about $4,064,000 and lower debt service by roughly $3,000,000 in future years.

The board debated trade‑offs. One member warned that restructuring is “a band aid” that pushes costs into the future and stressed the need to identify sustainable long‑term savings, while Dr. King, the board president, emphasized that trustees did not want to cut core programs or staff. "We do not like any of these cuts," Dr. King said, urging the board to explore alternatives before eliminating positions or services.

Beyond tax and debt moves, the finance presentation broke down revenues and expenditures: federal aid was reported at about $3,000,000 (a small share and largely restricted), state funding at roughly $58,000,000 and local revenue (primarily real‑estate taxes) at about $130,000,000. Mr. Steffey said approximately 65% of the budget is devoted directly to classroom instruction, with support services and non‑instructional operations making up the balance.

The board also discussed targeted cost-savings options the administration has been asked to study: restructuring debt, leasing district property, tightening school‑bus eligibility and pursuing solar energy. On transportation, Mr. Steffey reported that between 800 and 900 students currently fall into nonreimbursable distance bands under Pennsylvania rules and that tightening bus-eligibility zones could produce savings but would increase traffic and require operations planning.

On solar, trustees said a vendor walk‑through of district property occurs next week; Mr. Steffey described options that could place panels on roofs or on land near the bus garage and noted one vendor previously presented enough capacity to power the high school. A public commenter later urged the board to consider commodity‑price risk (silver) for panel components.

The board gave administration direction to model the financial effects of the 4.2% tax scenario, to provide details on the bond‑restructuring mechanics and consequences, and to return with analyses on transportation‑routing changes and solar pricing at upcoming budget workshops. The board reiterated that no final votes on taxes or cuts would occur until the formal budget adoption process (the board discussed timing into June), and instructed staff to produce updated projections for the next scheduled budget workshop.

The workshop closed with the board scheduling follow‑up work sessions and accepting further public input as the district refines options.