JACKSON TWP — Earlier this month, Seneca Valley School District’s board heard two public comments expressing concerns about the district’s spending trajectory.

At the board’s Monday, May 11, meeting comments from a Zelienople resident and a former county controller were presented. Both said they weren’t pleased with how the district is spending money.

The first comment came from Julie Jones, a resident of Zelienople, who addressed the district’s removal of door-to-door pickup for vocational-technical education students, especially in light of investing in a pricey renovation project.

A policy introduced this school year switched vo-tech students to designated pickup locations rather than door-to-door pickups, which some students had expressed would complicate their daily routine. According to district representatives, the change took place due to higher student enrollment in vo-tech programs.

Considering budget increases and spending on large-scale renovation projects, Jones said she believes Seneca Valley is neglecting its core responsibilities. Jones referred to the renovations as “projects that signal ambition, not necessity.”

Jones said that the district’s mindset, that everything needs to be the best — which she referred to as “misplaced priorities” — is the root of the problem.

“A public school’s job is not to have it all or to be flashiest, most expensive district around,” Jones said. “Its job is to educate students responsibly, prioritize needs over wants, and operate within the means of the community that funds it.”

Jones alluded to neighboring school districts, which she said have stayed flat in their taxation despite similar financial headwinds.

A May 13 statement issued by the district and attributed to board members Tim Hester and Nick Brower, cited size, logistics and potential impacts to student schedules for the change.

With the district covering about 100 square miles, transportation is a complex issue, the statement said. While the district has considered different options, front-door pickups would impact students at large, forcing some students to start their day before 6 a.m., according to the district.

“We believe it is important to balance transportation efficiency with what is best for students’ health, well-being and readiness to learn,” the statement read.

The statement also said vo-tech programs continue to be one of Seneca Valley’s top priorities.

For instance, the statement noted more than 600 eighth-grade students are required to partake in a career exploration program which provides “firsthand exposure” to vo-tech.

According to the statement, “To our knowledge, Seneca Valley is the only district in Butler County that buses every eighth-grade student to the vo-tech as part of this exploration experience.”

Jack McMillin, a former Butler County controller, followed up Jones’ comment with a criticism of the proposed tax increase necessary to balance the district’s proposed budget for the 2026-2027 school year, considering the option to avoid the hike with unrestricted funds.

McMillin, who previously had pushed back against 2025’s 5.5-mill tax increase, claimed then the unrestricted fund balances exceeded $30 million and the funds stood at about $36 million.

The district’s proposed $187 million budget for 2026-27 includes a planned real estate tax millage increase of 5.03 mills, setting the total millage rate at 148.88 mills, a 3.5% increase.

A mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s assessed taxable value.

McMillin said the unrestricted amounts should be used to counteract the increase in taxes.

He pointed out that in 2023, Pennsylvania Auditor General Timothy DeFoor listed 12 school districts in the state which had “accumulated large excessive reserve funds while still raising taxes, using accounting methods that allowed them to circumvent state legal restrictions.” DeFoor referred to the move as a “shell game.”

McMillin claims Seneca Valley is doing something similar.

In a separate statement in response to McMillin, the district said when it comes to finalizing the proposed budget, the school board will have to address “competing demands” that include educational programming, school safety, rising costs and rising healthcare expenses.

“Comparisons to other school districts do not account for important contextual differences,” according to the statement. “Understanding significant differences between school districts in state funding is multilayered.”

In the statement, Seneca Valley noted differences between the amount of funding received through sources other than local taxes, such as grants, vary from district to district.

The statement also noted that, while more enrollment comes with additional tax money, it also increases expenses for the district.

Pennsylvania’s school funding system is also a factor as it expects districts to rely substantially on property taxes for financial support, according to the district.

“In Butler County, property assessments are based on 1969 values and generally do not adjust over time with inflation or rising market values unless significant property improvements are made,” according to the statement. “As a result, properties that have been established for some time and sold over the years for a higher sales price do not reflect a higher assessed value under this type of assessment system.”

The board plans to vote on the proposed $187 million budget at its June 8 meeting.