District finance staff recommends 2.75% tax increase, 21 new/converted positions and use of committed reserves in FY26 plan

The Wallingford‑Swarthmore School District business office presented a preliminary FY2025‑26 budget estimate to the finance committee on April 23 that recommends a 2.75% tax increase, adds personnel to address building and programmatic needs, and proposes drawing $1.4 million from the district’s committed fund balances to balance the plan.

Joanna Mosley, the district business officer leading the presentation, told the committee that the recommendation reflects a mix of reallocations, restorations of in‑house services and a modest tax increase to fund operations and newly identified needs. “The benefit of reallocating is we’re taking existing money and applying it in a different area,” Mosley said. She also warned of near‑term federal grant uncertainty, saying the district faces a risk of forfeiting funds unless federal guidance changes.

Major revenue and fund choices: Mosley recommended the 2.75% tax increase to generate local revenue for FY26 and proposed using $1.4 million from committed fund balances (previously set aside for specific purposes) to help meet next year’s costs. The presentation included updated revenue expectations, modest adjustments to transfer tax projections and a note that some state allocations (for example, the Ready to Learn/tax equity supplement) had been confirmed at higher levels.

Personnel and phases: The business office framed budget changes in four phases. Phase 4 introduced by the presentation includes roughly 13 new or converted positions (21 total added across phases 2–4), with an estimated FY26 personnel cost of about $1.758 million for the phase‑4 items. Examples provided in the packet and discussed during the meeting included: - a procurement coordinator to centralize bidding and reduce contract costs; - a supervisor of instructional technology to implement the district’s learning management system and support classroom technology integration; - an elementary dean position to support building principals with behavioral needs; - a middle‑school dean combined with an athletic‑director function to manage middle‑school athletics and student conduct; - conversion of contracted athletic trainers and behavioral health contractors into district employees in order to improve coverage and reduce contract instability; - additional teacher positions and TOSA (teacher on special assignment) staffing tied to program needs and projected enrollment increases.

Mosley said some of the personnel needs represent conversions of services already budgeted as contracts; in other cases the district is restoring positions eliminated in earlier years. The packet shows that many of the personnel additions will be building‑based rather than central office roles.

ESSER and grant risk: Mosley told the committee that the district received a March 28 memo from the Pennsylvania Department of Education about late liquidations of certain ESSER‑set‑aside funds. She said the district currently faces a risk of forfeiting roughly $800,000 tied to late liquidation of one pot of funds and an additional $500,000 of reimbursement risk tied to other FER submissions. The finance staff said legal counsel and statewide groups are coordinating potential appeals but cautioned the process could be lengthy.

Medical access reimbursement and savings opportunities: Mosley noted the district has a roughly $1.4 million balance in a medical‑access account that it historically had not been drawing down; she proposed reestablishing that program to offset some special‑education costs and to fund one new special‑education teacher without net cost to the general fund while the reimbursement stream is rebuilt.

Debt capacity and borrowing context: The business officer provided an overview of statutory borrowing limits (DCED rules) and the district’s remaining borrowing base in case the board chooses to fund major capital work with debt. She recommended continued multi‑year planning to align capital needs and debt decisions with the operating budget.

Next steps and public process: The committee discussed timing and asked for additional detail, including annualized versions of major capital and maintenance cost scenarios so the board can see per‑year impacts. Mosley and staff said the packet will be refined before the full board packet and that contract renewals and procurement policies will be brought forward as needed. No final board action was requested at the finance committee meeting.

Ending: The committee scheduled further review; members praised the work to document baseline spending and to identify opportunities to convert contracted services to district staff where feasible.