Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coatesville Area SD previews $255.9M preliminary budget; salaries, benefits and debt service drive $13.9M increase
Summary
District finance staff presented a preliminary 2026–27 expenditure budget of $255.9 million, a $13.9 million (5.77%) increase driven largely by salaries/benefits, higher special‑education and charter tuition costs, and rising debt service tied to new school construction.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coatesville Area School District finance staff on March 10 presented a preliminary expenditure budget for 2026–27 totaling $255.9 million, an increase of $13.9 million, or about 5.77%, over the prior‑year budget of $242 million. The presentation, given by Lori Deenderfer and Dr. Barek, focused on object‑code drivers and school‑level worksheets and did not include revenue assumptions beyond a general outline of state and local funding sources.
Administrators said the largest upward pressures are contract‑driven salary and benefit increases (object codes 100 and 200), higher professional and technical service costs tied to expanded special‑education support (object 300 series), charter‑school tuition and transportation costs, and a sizable increase in interest and principal payments tied to borrowing for new school construction. Deenderfer reported a preliminary salaries and benefits total of about $79.7 million and identified a $4.2 million rise in professional/technical services compared with the prior year.
School‑level worksheets showed mixed impacts: some elementary budgets shrink as two buildings are closed and students shift into the new Dorun Elementary, while middle‑grade changes (adding sixth–eighth grades at some schools) increase supply and materials costs in other attendance areas. The high school showed a substantial decline in its building budget because a full grade was shifted out under the district’s reconfiguration.
Board members asked whether year‑over‑year comparisons used budgeted or audited actuals; administrators confirmed the prior‑year budget ($242 million) was used as the starting baseline and said they will continue to refine numbers using year‑to‑date actuals. The presentation noted an audited district fund balance of about $23 million following last year’s operations, and administrators warned that maintaining policy reserves will be challenging given current pressures.
The district outlined next steps: additional departmental and revenue reviews in April and May and a special board meeting scheduled for June 9 to propose a final budget for adoption before the June 30 deadline. Administrators reminded the board that the district previously adopted an Act 1 adjusted index ceiling of 4.5% as a maximum tax increase option, but said it was too early to identify whether the district would seek that full amount.
The finance committee voted unanimously to move the presentation materials and related consent items to the full board agenda for further review.

