No tax increase 6 of past 10 years contributes to Plum School District's 6.2% proposed hike

Plum School Board members say they can’t afford to continue putting off raising property taxes.

The board has opted not to boost taxes for six of the past 10 years. Some board members say that’s one reason why district property owners are facing a hefty increase now.

The board is expected to vote Tuesday on a proposed $74.3 million budget for the 2024-25 school year.

It includes a 6.2% property tax increase, with half of 1% going toward paying for a future building project. It is just under the district’s state-imposed inflation limit of 7.1%.

The district is looking to future budgets as it readies for borrowing $30 million for building work and to pay for implementing a full-day kindergarten program.

If the budget is approved, the owners of a home at the district’s $116,700 median assessed value would see their annual school property tax bill increase by $160, from $2,570 to $2,730.

The district did not increase taxes for this school year, when the state would have allowed up to a 5.4% increase without voter approval or exceptions to exceed the limit without a referendum. Board member Ronald Sakolsky noted that last year happened to be an election year for the school board.

Ryan Manzer, the district’s business manager, said if the board had increased property taxes for the current year by 2%, it would have reduced next year’s increase by the same amount as well as given the district additional savings and have a compounding effect over multiple years.

Board member Mark Stropkaj, the board’s finance liaison, said a lot of zeroes are found when looking at the district’s property tax increase history.

In addition to no increase for the current school year, the district did not increase taxes for three straight years, from 2019-20 through 2021-22. It also did not increase taxes in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The district increased its tax rate to its state limit in 2022-23 (4.5%) and 2016-17 (3.3%). It raised the rate by more than its index two years straight, 2017-18 (4.47%) and 2018-19 (4.11%), using exceptions for special education spending and pension obligations.

Tax increases that are more frequent but smaller would be better received by residents who could then more easily budget for them, rather than having the shock of a 5% to 6% hike every two or three years, Stropkaj said.

Looking over the past decade, 2% increases each year would have led the district to the same place it will be after the increase, but more smoothly, he said.

In March, Manzer presented budget projections showing property tax increases each school year through 2028-29.

Superintendent Rick Walsh noted the district relies heavily on local funding with nearly half, 46%, of its money coming from local taxpayers. Efforts are underway at the state level to increase state support and reduce how much districts are forced to pay for cyber charter school tuition.

“When public schools are not appropriately supported at the state level, we have to rely at the local level even more,” Walsh said.

For the 2024-25 school year, Manzer said inflation remains a challenge, and the district will lose $1.1 million in federal dollars as covid-era funding ends.

The district has to pay salary and benefits increases under its contracts, he said.

Other costs include buying new buses, as the board is expected to vote Tuesday to spend nearly $200,000 for two buses.

The district also has to maintain its facilities, Manzer said. Replacing the 21-year-old, failing lighting system in the high school auditorium is expected to cost about $348,000, while an emergency roof repair underway at O’Block Elementary to fix leaks is running almost $119,000.

Stropkaj noted the auditorium lights combined with a $260,000 curriculum proposal for the student services program alone add up to about $600,000.

“We have to pay for those somehow,” he said. “To be fiscally responsible is not just not raising taxes.”

Stropkaj noted the school district is coming to residents with a property tax increase after the borough increased its property tax rate and the Plum Borough Municipal Authority increased water and sewer rates.

“We’re obligated to move this district forward,” he said.

Board member Michelle Stepnick said she doesn’t like the idea of raising taxes, but it’s sometimes the fiscally responsible thing to do. She said board members should not vote to spend money if they’re not willing to support the taxes needed to do so.