Bermudian Springs Administration outlines preliminary 2024–25 budget, proposes 5.4% millage ceiling

Justin, the district finance presenter, laid out the administration’s preliminary 2024–25 budget and the millage options the board will consider at its formal meeting. He said special-education placements and a recently proposed elementary emotional-support classroom are the primary drivers behind the budget increases.

The presentation said the district expects to add roughly $140,000 for an elementary emotional-support classroom and about $253,700 for out-of-district student placements (River Rock, Yellow Breeches and other placements). Justin said two residential placements alone are currently estimated to exceed $100,000. He described special education as a “very difficult moving target” because costs change with student needs.

Why it matters: the board must set a preliminary millage rate that becomes the ceiling for the final June vote; the administration recommended a 5.4% preliminary rate on the agenda. At 5.4% the district would draw approximately $886,000 from fund balance to balance the budget; lower rates increase the shortfall and produce deeper negative projections in years two and three under current assumptions.

Justin gave a breakdown of revenue and expenditures: roughly 56–57% of revenue is local, just under 40% state, and about 1.3% federal after ESSER phaseouts. He highlighted long-term pressure from cyber-charter tuition (accumulating to roughly $11 million over eight years as presented) and noted the district’s special-education budget exceeds $4 million.

Board members asked about state-level proposals that could affect the district; the presenter cautioned that a proposed $200 million increase in basic education and an additional $50 million for special education were reflected in his working figures but not guaranteed. He reminded the board that Pennsylvania law allows reduction but not increase from the preliminary millage to the final adoption in June.

Board discussion afterward focused on options and priorities: several members signaled they were leaning below 5.4% (some toward 3.6%) because of taxpayer pressure; another member said they would support 5.4% to ensure funding for anticipated program costs. Several members suggested designating any difference between a higher preliminary ceiling and the final rate for specific future costs (for example, ATI-related commitments) to clarify community messaging.

The caucus ended with the reminder that the district will revisit the numbers at the June meeting when the board must adopt the final budget and millage.

The board is scheduled to vote on the preliminary budget at the next formal meeting.