Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Keystone Central faces $3.6M shortfall; board weighs tax options, staffing study and cuts ahead of May upload
Loading...
Summary
Finance director Joni told the committee the district faces a preliminary deficit of about $3.675 million under a no‑tax scenario; the board debated millage increases (0.88–3.5%) versus immediate cuts, discussed a staffing study that could save about $1 million, and noted timelines and insurance and receivership risks ahead of the May PDE upload.
Keystone Central School District finance staff presented a preliminary general fund budget to the finance committee on April 28 showing a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall and a tightly constrained timeline for decisionmaking.
Finance director Joni explained the numbers and options for the May submission to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). “So this is with the no tax increase. So we would be submitting a budget of a deficit of about 3.675,” Joni said. She showed how different millage options would reduce the shortfall: a 0.88 millage option would drop the deficit to roughly $3.4 million; a 1.75% option to about $3.1 million; a 2.63% option to roughly $2.9 million; and a 3.5% Act 3.5% option would reduce the deficit to about $2.6 million.
Board members underscored the district’s constrained fiscal picture: Joni warned fund balance projections could fall sharply if the district continues to run deficits. The board was also reminded that the district carries significant debt: administration noted total bond debt of about $75,000,000 across multiple bond issues with repayment stretching over the next two to three decades.
Members debated whether to present a preliminary no‑tax‑increase budget (so the board could continue to seek cuts while the staffing study is completed) or to present a higher millage option to avoid deeper shortfalls. One board member argued a maximum increase could be necessary to avoid receivership; another proposed beginning with a 0% preliminary filing because the board can revise numbers between May and June if needed.
Timing and process were central to the discussion. Joni said she must upload a preliminary budget to PDE before the May meeting and that whatever is uploaded triggers statutory notice windows: “I need some guidance today to get the numbers to… I can only bring back one choice at the May meeting,” she said. Committee members discussed the practical limits of calling a special public meeting and the constraints of Sunshine Act notice requirements.
The board also discussed a staffing study — an analysis tied to lower enrollment that administrators said could produce an estimated $1,000,000 in savings if the board approves the recommended changes. Several members cautioned that the study’s savings depend on later board action and possible contract negotiations, and thus are not guaranteed.
Other budget risks surfaced: the finance director said the district is approaching thresholds that could increase insurance costs and make renewals more difficult. “We are on to be edge of being critically not being able to be insured,” the director said, pointing to a combination of sustained deficits and claims exposure.
The meeting ended with Joni saying she would proceed with a PDE upload consistent with the direction provided by the committee (the staff reported the preliminary PDE upload would reflect a no‑tax increase option), and with plans to return a formal proposed general fund budget at the May meeting for the full board to vote. The staffing study and targeted department budget reviews will continue as potential offsets ahead of any final vote.
