Southern York County SD board recommends compromise budget: $2M fund-balance use and 2.96% tax increase

Miss Green and district finance staff presented the Southern York County SD’s proposed 2026–27 budget, telling the board the district faces a structural shortfall and limited local revenue growth.

The presentation laid out vulnerabilities — minimal growth in real estate assessments, fewer investable funds (lower interest earnings), uncertainty in state and federal funding, and a roughly 15% health insurance rate increase — and a range of balancing options. Tre ver Carrington said the starting point for the 2627 budget is about $68.1 million and that local revenues are essentially flat, leaving a projected deficit of roughly $2.8 million under current assumptions.

To address the hole, administrators offered four options that mix use of fund balance, debt-service millage and tax-rate changes. “So, we are recommending option three,” Miss Green said, describing a plan that uses approximately $2 million of fund balance, adds a tenth of a mill for debt service and recommends a 2.96% tax increase. The district estimated that change would put the tax rate at about 20.5 mills and raise the typical median household bill by about $108.75.

Board members asked about program impacts and implementation risk. Miss Green and Dr. Bryson emphasized the staffing reductions in the recommended budget would come through attrition — retirements or resignations — and not by involuntary layoffs. The proposed 2627 draft removes 12 professional positions and seven support positions through attrition; administrators said core special-education responsibilities and legally mandated services would remain in place, though caseloads and class sizes could shift.

Officials also presented enrollment data showing a long-term decline from the 2015–16 peak (roughly 350 fewer students districtwide), which drives part of the structural pressure. Trevor Carrington said the district projects using less fund balance in the current year than earlier expected (about $1.4 million vs. $2.7 million), but warned that continued reliance on one-time fund-balance draws would not cure the underlying gap between recurring revenues and expenses.

Several board members said they favored the recommended option as a compromise to protect programs while limiting immediate tax pain. “I am in agreement with option three. I think that’s a compromise,” Board President Nathan Hankle said during discussion.

Administrators noted possible one-time offsets — such as selling district property in New Freedom or repatriating some placed special-needs students — but characterized those as uncertain and nonrecurring. They urged the board to adopt a phased approach to capital funding (a small, staged millage) rather than a single large bond to preserve flexibility.

The board did not take a final vote on the 2627 proposal at the meeting. Directors requested time to review the slides and gave staff direction to return with a proposed April budget for initial approval; the final tax rate and budget would be set at the May meeting once homestead/farmstead figures and other data are finalized.