Crestwood financial committee hears $1.5 million budget gap, approves outsourcing payroll and plans system migration

Crestwood School District administrators told the financial planning committee that their preliminary 2026–27 budget shows $51.8 million in revenue and $50.4 million in expenses, leaving an estimated $1.5 million shortfall that the board must close before adoption in June.

"The preliminary budget that I built is showing $51.8 million in revenue and $50.4 million in expense. So, there's a gap of about $1.5 million," said Mr. Benz, who presented the update to the committee. He outlined options to close the gap, including modest property tax increases, reinstating a late‑payment penalty and conservative assumptions about state aid.

The administration recommended outsourcing payroll processing to School Business Consultants at an annual cost of $39,000, instead of hiring a full‑time replacement for the departed payroll employee. "We've been using a contractor... School Business Consultants at a cost of $39,000 a year," Mr. Benz said, adding that the vendor will run payroll on the district’s Skyward system and staff disruptions should be minimal. The district received two RFP responses, the other from ADP; administrators said the chosen proposal offered substantially lower cost and less business interruption.

Officials also reported that Skyward’s financial accounting product is being sunset and the district evaluated alternatives. Administrators said a CSIU solution scored highest in their rubric and that the district is targeting a financial‑system conversion by Jan. 1, 2027. They said the annual cost is similar to the current system but significant staff time will be required for data conversion.

On revenue levers, the presenter cited the Act 1 tax index (noted at 4.4%) and said each 1 percentage‑point property tax increase would generate about $240,000 for the district. He also said restoring a delinquent‑payment penalty could add roughly $80,000. The administration said its state aid assumption for next year reflects a conservative portion of proposed increases and that adjustments will be revisited when final tax rolls and state actions are known.

Committee members reviewed budgeted personnel changes and a $650,000 special‑education investment line that the administration described as a net incremental cost after anticipated cost‑avoidance from returning certain students from off‑campus placements. Board members asked for clearer per‑student comparisons and space/staffing analyses for bringing programs back in‑district; the administration said those cost‑avoidance calculations exist and will be further developed for board review.

Parents and community members attending the session urged targeted special‑education programming. "We have kids in the district who cannot read and you're pushing them through," one parent said, advocating dyslexia‑specific interventions as an early priority for the special‑education funds.

Budget next steps: the administration plans a brief public update in May, will post a proposed final budget supplement online when the district posts the legally required proposed budget, and expects to adopt a final budget in the June regular voting meeting. The presenter also proposed a separate public session late in April to present capital‑borrowing options with bond counsel, a broker and the district’s independent fiduciary to show structures that would not increase general‑fund debt‑service in the near term.

The committee voted to move several items to next week’s full‑board voting meeting for formal consideration.