Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears stark budget picture and divides on tax approach; administration proposes 2.9% preliminary target
Summary
Administration presented a preliminary 2026–27 budget showing $2.2M in personnel cost growth, healthcare rising about 8.3%, and significant debt‑service pressure. Staff recommended a 2.9% real‑estate tax proposal for April while board members debated using the Act 1 index (4.7%) versus smaller or zero increases and discussed eliminating the $10 per‑capita tax.
Business manager Mr. Zavorczyk (walking to the microphone for the budget workshop) told the board that personnel costs — contract steps, replacement hires and six new special‑education aides — are the largest driver of next year’s expense increase, roughly $2.2 million. He also flagged healthcare at an estimated 8.3% increase (about $750,000) and rising utilities, insurance and equipment costs.
“We're looking at $3,800,000 in increases to our budget for next year,” the administration said in its set of preliminary estimates, noting it had identified roughly $800,000 in cost savings by scrutinizing every department but still faced a multi‑million dollar gap.
Administrators outlined revenue pressures as well. State and federal sources together were expected to add roughly $836,000, but that left a local shortfall; administration said a mix of state increases, efficiencies and local tax changes would be required and urged the board to provide direction so staff can finalize a preliminary budget for the April posting.
On tax policy, the business office recommended presenting a preliminary budget at a 2.9% real‑estate tax increase to close the near‑term gap while continuing to explore alternatives. Several board members argued for using the full Act 1 index (4.7%) to create more breathing room and a clearer path to priorities like full‑day kindergarten; others rejected that level without explicit, dedicated commitments to use the revenue for kindergarten or capital.
Board members also questioned the per‑capita tax, a $10 annual charge on adults. The tax collector explained the levy typically raises about $90,000 but is administratively burdensome and only reaches a fraction of adults; some members recommended modeling the budget scenarios both with and without the per‑capita line so the board can weigh fairness and collection costs.
Multiple members asked the administration for scenario analyses that show, at a 0% increase, which programs, services or staffing lines would need to be cut. One board member asked for a specific list the public could reference when the preliminary budget is published for the required 30‑day display.
What happens next: Administration said it will return in April with final numbers and the recommended preliminary budget (administration indicated intent to present a 2.9% filing) and asked for the board’s guidance on whether that is acceptable; members requested alternate scenarios showing 0%, 2.9% and 4.7% impacts on programs and staffing.
