The Salisbury Township School District School Board was presented with the proposed final budget for the 2013-2014 school year at the May 1 operations meeting.

The administration presented the board with three options for next year's budget. Option 1 would require a 2.2 percent tax increase for residents, leaving a net deficit of $182,838. Option 2 would require a 2.6 percent tax increase leaving a net deficit of $96,906. Option 3 would require a 2.99 percent increase, the maximum allowed, leaving a net deficit of $16,250.

The deficit was proposed to be taken from the fund balance.

Superintendent Michael Roth said the administration recommends Option 3. Roth said he is not confident in the governor's budget and is not sure if public schools will see the money promised to them.

"I'm not confident [the governor's budget] will be passed in a timely manner," Roth said. "I'm not confident in some of the recommendations that were made by the governor. Hearing some of the things happening in the legislature I'm not sure we're going to get those dollars that were promised. There's already talk of the liquor control board privatization dying on the vine."

Roth said he struggled with the recommendation.

"I don't like taking money from people," Roth said. "I don't like raising taxes, but I would like to point out that across the United States in 2009-2010, the average burden on local property owners in terms of education was 28.54 percent. In Pennsylvania it was 42.5 percent. The state has made the decision they are not going to raise taxes. They are not going to gain any kind of additional revenue from Marcellus Shale or any other things that are available within the Commonwealth, but they're pushing that burden down onto the local taxpayer through real estate taxes."

Roth added he wished he did not have to recommend the 2.99 percent increase, but felt he would not be doing his due diligence if he did not.

Regardless of the option chosen, Roth said the board should consider absorbing the deficit through the general fund balance rather than through additional cuts.

"Our administration would like to keep everything in place," Business Administrator Robert Bruchak said. "We've taken a lot of hits and our goal is to balance the budget that doesn't reduce staff or programs since we've made those cuts in the past several years."

In 2008-2009, the school district had 253 people on staff. In 2012-2013, that number was down to 228. In that time, enrollment has also dipped from 1,719 to 1,592 students.

Despite the administrations recommendation, Option 3 was quickly ruled out by the board.

School Board President Russell Giordano said he was fine with either Option 1 or 2, and favored Option 1. He said this may be one of the few opportunities in the next few years they could do less and help out the taxpayers.

"If we can do what we need to do for our students and not cut any additional programs or faculty, maintain our professional development efforts, maintain our technology integration– all of the good things we're doing here– and we have to take a little out of the fund balance in order to do that I'm feeling okay about that," Giordano said.

Board member George Gatanis agreed with Giordano about Option 1.

"This is the one opportunity we could try and help out the community relative to what they're going to have to be shelling out," Gatanis said. "A lot of the elderly have been hit with the reassessment and I don't want to have to add to it."

Board member Jane Fischer said she was not as comfortable with Option 1 and supported Option 2.

"I would like that rainy day fund to be as strong as possible because I'm always concerned about the 'what if?'" Fischer said. "I think it's a fair compromise for our taxpayers while we're still trying to maintain what we've built so far with the cuts we have had to make."

Board member Mary Ziegler also initially supported Option 2, but after further discussion with the board said she could also support Option 1. Operations Chair Frank Frankenfield also supported Option 1.

"This is a big chance to go low," Giordano said. "I don't think we're gambling that much. When all is said and done we're talking about less than $200,000."

The operations committee agreed to direct the administration toward Option 1. The proposed final budget adoption will be held at the May 15 school board meeting.