Whitehall-Coplay School District committee flags $6M budget gap, backs 4.7% proposed tax index

Whitehall-Coplay School District finance committee members were warned Tuesday that the district faces a significant shortfall for the 2026–27 school year and agreed to present a proposed final budget using the Act 1 index of 4.7% at the April 27 board meeting.

The committee convened to put a number on the proposed budget and heard that the district’s audited fund balance as of June 30, 2025, is about $9.5 million while the current package of revenues and expenditures leaves roughly a $6 million unfunded gap. “I’m not one for alarm bells … but it’s alarm bell time for our district,” the finance committee chair said, urging board members to engage now rather than waiting for the final meeting.

Why it matters: the committee must balance the statutory limits on tax increases set out under the state’s Act 1 process against cuts to programs and the use of fund balance. Presenters said the district would realize an estimated $2.4 million additional revenue under a 4.7% index increase; each percentage point of tax change was described as roughly equivalent to $500,000 in revenue. Even with the 4.7% index, the committee was told, a multi‑million‑dollar gap would remain.

Budget details: staff reported projected local revenues of about $62 million for 2026–27, a state revenue increase of roughly $2.8 million (basic education, special education, transportation and Ready‑to‑Learn funds tied to recent litigation), and small variances in real‑estate and earned‑income lines. On the expenditure side, salary and benefit increases (including step/column movement and health‑care cost increases in the high teens percent range) and transportation needs were the primary cost drivers. The presenter said the budget includes roughly $1.5 million for replacing about 10 buses (six 78‑passenger, two 42‑passenger wheelchair buses and two vans).

Board options discussed: members debated a mix of measures — asking staff to “peel back” discretionary items, targeting paraeducator and building substitute costs, staggering or postponing bus purchases, and evaluating charter‑school tuition and other service lines — but members acknowledged deep cuts risked harming classroom services. The presenter highlighted the scale of reductions required to reach lower tax rates: to move from the proposed 4.7% toward a hypothetical 4.0% would require multiple millions in additional reductions or heavy use of fund balance.

Process and next steps: the committee agreed to place a proposed final budget reflecting a 4.7% index on the April 27 full‑board agenda to keep statutory deadlines; final adoption is scheduled in June. Staff asked board members to email cost‑change ideas for analysis and reminded members that tax discussions outside an open meeting may violate Sunshine Law requirements. The committee emphasized that the April 27 figure would be adjustable before final approval if members identify alternative savings or if actual revenues differ from projections.

The finance committee did not take a formal final vote to adopt a budget at the meeting; it voted to recommend bringing the 4.7% proposal to the full board for consideration.