Harrisburg board hears budget update as administration pins future to state adequacy funding

The Harrisburg City School District administration on June 23 laid out its proposed final 2026–27 budget and said it will seek board approval at a special meeting on June 30.

Dr. Marsha Stokes told the board the final budget reflects a 1.5% property tax increase, bringing the millage to 31.871, and is roughly $600,000 smaller than the proposal shown in May. The administration said the district’s taxable assessed value declined by about $22.5 million (≈1.52%), largely offsetting much of the proposed increase: under the district’s examples, a homeowner with $100,000 assessed value and a homestead exemption would see roughly a $26 annual increase; at the district median assessed value ($54,800) the estimated increase is about $4.64.

Stokes said the district remains substantially dependent on state aid — about 67% of revenue — and is counting on an anticipated $7.4 million “adequacy” supplement derived from the fair funding settlement. Because state budget outcomes are not final, the administration placed 50% of that anticipated $7.4M in a budgetary reserve and earmarked other conservative adjustments on the expenditure side.

On the expenditure side, the budget reflects adjustments including: elimination of a proposed high‑school autistic support classroom (saving an estimated portion of the $600,000 reduction), updated charter tuition counts, updated Title allocations, targeted increases for Camp Curtin supports, reallocation of some facilities funds and an anticipated $600,000 annual savings from a planned bond refunding. The district expects roughly $19M in principal and interest payments next year and currently shows about $147.5M in outstanding principal on bonds.

During questioning, board members pressed Stokes on the origins of the $600,000 reduction and on the rationale for lowering the proposed millage from earlier scenarios (3% or higher) to 1.5%. Stokes said the cuts and clarified allocations — including adjustments to CSI (grant) expenditures and staffing changes — plus increases in some federal revenues enabled the lower rate while aiming to “break even” in light of the assessed‑value decline.

Stokes and staff also reviewed multi‑year projections under two scenarios: one that assumes the adequacy supplement continues in full each year, and a more conservative scenario that assumes it is guaranteed for only two additional years. With the full adequacy stream the district’s modeled fund balance grows substantially; under the two‑year adequacy assumption the district still shows surpluses in early years but risks a multi‑million‑dollar deficit later in the projection window without program or revenue changes.

Board members asked administration to run further scenarios and to identify specific expenditure cuts that would permit lower or no tax increase options; a formal vote on the budget and tax levy was scheduled for June 30.

What’s next: The board will consider final adoption of the 2026–27 general fund budget and the tax resolutions at its June 30 meeting. The administration said it will prepare alternative scenarios if the board requests additional options.