Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Penn budget shows balanced 2026–27 plan on paper; administration outlines $2.6M cuts needed to limit tax increase to about 2%
Summary
District finance staff presented a long-range plan and PDE budget book showing a balanced 2026–27 budget that assumes a 4.1% real-estate tax increase; administration also described tiered reduction scenarios that would remove about $2.6 million in expenditures to lower the increase to roughly 2%, prompting strong board debate.
District finance staff presented a budget update to the East Penn School Board on April 13 that shows a balanced 2026–27 proposed budget on the long-range plan, but one that includes a recommended 4.1% real-estate tax increase (the Act 1 index). Administration also delivered a tiered reduction scenario that would remove roughly $2.6 million in additional expenditures to pursue a target near a 2% tax increase.
Chief financial presenter Mr. Saul said the long-range plan was updated to reflect a $1.5 million reduction in the planned transfer to capital reserve and a $79,000 reduction in the budgetary reserve so the projected 2026–27 budget appears balanced on the plan and in the PDE 2028 budget book format. He reiterated that the proposed plan includes the Act 1-indexed 4.1% tax increase.
Administration then offered a multi-tier reduction scenario to meet a roughly 2% tax target. "We would have to reduce our expenditures by an additional $2.6 million," the presenter stated, describing a three-tier approach: tier one (operational reductions with limited immediate instructional impact such as 5% building/department budget trims, reduced conference/travel and software licensing reviews), tier two (program and service reductions that would reduce extracurriculars, activity buses, after-school remediation and some contracted student supports), and tier three (staffing and structural reductions that would materially affect class sizes, core programming and student-support services).
Board members challenged the 2%-implied cuts. Dr. Levinson warned that "limiting the increase to 2% comes at a significant cost ... an unacceptable cost," arguing that underfunding now would compound problems and that the Act 1 capacity can be "use it or lose it." Other board members said deep reductions would harm students and staff; several asked the administration to present more intermediate scenarios (options between 2% and 4.1%) and more detail on administrative pay-freeze effects and property-tax rebate alternatives.
Administration said it would provide additional analysis and legal guidance about rebate and relief options and continue to refine the budget before the board is asked to adopt a proposed final budget at the April 27 meeting.
