William Penn SD hears consultant benchmarking and business-office update as special-education and charter costs drive budget pressure

William Penn School District met March 20 to review a benchmarking analysis from PFM and a business-office update that together outline where the districts budget is under pressure and where officials see possible savings and revenue relief.

The PFM presentation to the district recommended further review of special-education program structure and of charter-school enrollment and transportation use, while the business office reported specific spending increases, a projected $6 million boost in total revenue for 2025-26 and the recent closing of two bond issues to shore up cash flow.

PFM consultant Ian Tyson said the firm compared William Penn to six peer districts using state reporting to identify areas where the districts per-student costs exceed its peers. "Special education costs are higher in William Penn," Tyson said, noting that when charter tuition is excluded the districts special-education cost per student is roughly $4,600 above the benchmark average. Tyson recommended reviewing how nearby districts structure services and increasing federal Medicaid access reimbursements where possible to reduce the local/state share of those costs.

The benchmark analysis identified three primary budget pressure points: - Special education: William Penn has a higher share of classroom teachers accounted as special-education teachers, and a larger share of its special-education spending falls into higher-cost categories (services costing $25,000$50,000 and over $50,000). PFM said those higher-cost placements, combined with lower federal access revenue per student than peers, increase the districts local burden. - Charter tuition: The districts share of students enrolled in charter schools is above the peer-group average, and charter tuition is a growing spending category. PFM suggested surveying parents and exploring district-run alternatives (including some cyber options) where the district could provide comparable services at lower cost. - Transportation: PFM found William Penns cost per transported student above the peer average and recommended reviewing route design and utilization, particularly for 72-passenger buses, where the districts fill rates were below peer averages. Tyson cautioned that geography and special-education placements can limit achievable savings.

At the business-office update, Dave Zablowski described current revenue and expenditure projections and recent financial actions. He told the committee he expects several expenditure increases in 2025-26: a 5.66% increase in medical insurance (about $357,000), a 4.5% Aramark increase for maintenance and operations (about $200,000), and an assumed 5% increase in transportation costs (about $400,000). Zablowski also cited other shifts: a roughly $330,000 increase in the districts special-education fair-share payment, about $2.9 million in Delaware County Intermediate Unit special-education services (an increase he said is about $853,000 over last year), a 12.1% increase in VOTEC costs (about $110,004.58) and projected labor-cost increases tied to a 3% assumption for the teachers contract (about $1 million) plus associated pension costs he characterized as roughly 34% of those wages.

Zablowski reported revenue-side developments that improve the districts outlook: the governors proposed budget and changes to the Ready-to-Learn block grant mean the district expects higher foundation funding in 2025-26, and he said the district projects total revenues of about $133.2 million for 2025-26 compared with about $127.2 million for 2024-25, an increase of nearly $6 million. He said the district closed on two 2025 bond issues: $13 million tied to the Cypress project and another $13 million for working capital.

Board and committee members pressed staff on data timeliness and program impacts. A budget advisory committee member, Miss Commodore, warned about current transportation staffing and service issues and said, "our transportation is not an area that we should be cutting or changing." Tyson and staff acknowledged that driver shortages and route reliability can limit any immediate efficiency gains and that some recommendations would require detailed route and service reviews.

Other commenters asked about grants and summer programming. Zablowski said the district pursues grants across departments but that most grants are targeted (security, construction, energy or specific programs) and do not generally cover operating costs. He said the district had applied for and received several grants, including funds already assigned to summer programs.

Tyson and Zablowski described next steps: PFM will update its five-year financial projection after the district finalizes a proposed 2025-26 budget and will model the potential budgetary impact of cost-saving initiatives identified in the benchmarking. The business office will continue to refine revenue estimates as county assessment data and final state budget actions become available.

The meeting recorded no formal board votes on budget items during the session; presenters and staff said many of the recommendations would require further study, contractual negotiation or legislative action before the board could adopt policy changes or budget reductions.

As the district moves toward budget adoption, officials signaled two takeaways: special-education costs and charter tuition merit prioritized review for potential savings, and recent state funding changes and bond proceeds have improved the near-term revenue outlook but do not eliminate the need for continued expenditure management and bargaining outcomes to control future-year deficits.