Conewago Valley SD presents $92.6 million budget; board weighs tax increase and staffing additions

Dr. Perry and finance staff presented the Conewago Valley School District's proposed 2026-27 general-fund budget — $92,576,000 in total expenditures — and asked the board for guidance on tax-rate options and staffing priorities.

"So this evening, we have 1 hour together to continue the conversation regarding the expenses and the tax rate proposal," Dr. Perry told the board as he opened the session and asked for direction for developing the final budget.

Mr. Frazier, the district's finance presenter, walked the board through Fact Sheet Volume 2 and the expenditure breakdowns, including personnel costs at roughly 68% of the general fund (about 39% salaries and 29% benefits) and a stated instructional focus that uses 65% of funds for direct instruction. He gave specific line items: $37,982,000 for regular K-12 instruction and $18,275,000 for special education, and he described projected debt-service requirements tied to existing general-obligation bonds.

Board members and attendees pressed administrators on affordability and low-income datapoints: one discussion noted that 40.51% of students are economically disadvantaged and urged caution before increasing taxes. "I am laying awake at night not sleeping because I am so worried about our community, our families," one board member said, urging the district to consider delaying or removing some of the proposed positions to reduce the need to raise property taxes.

Administrators offered tradeoffs. Mr. Frazier said the recommended move to "50% of the index" would translate to roughly a 2% tax increase tied to inflation mechanics; he gave an ACTI-specific millage figure of 0.1163 mil projected to raise $290,000 and calculated that 0.1163 mil equals about $11.63 for a homeowner with $100,000 of assessed value (about $23 on the district's $200,000 average assessment). Board discussion focused on whether cutting several proposed positions (the packet itemized approximately 17 new positions across categories) could avoid a tax increase this year.

Speakers outlined both short-term and long-term consequences of delaying revenue or capital funding: if the board holds the line at 0% this year it could force larger increases in later years or heavier use of fund balance; administrators warned that repeatedly delaying revenue increases may degrade long-term fiscal position and require larger corrections later.

What's next: Dr. Perry said the board would reconvene on March 16 for another budget work session; the proposed final budget is scheduled to be presented April 6, with a recommended board adoption of the proposed-final budget April 13 and a 30-day public review before final adoption in May.

Clarifying details: the draft budget includes specific staffing additions (including 12 autistic-support positions listed as 4 teachers and 8 aides) and shows personnel as the largest cost driver; the ACTI millage portion and homeowner-impact math were presented by Mr. Frazier; several savings scenarios were discussed by board members but no formal motions were made during the study session.

The board did not take a formal vote during the study session; the meeting closed with a plan for further budget deliberation at the March 16 follow-up session.