Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
William Penn board adopts proposed $149 million 2026–27 budget, staff restorations and a 4.45% tax proposal
Summary
The William Penn School District board adopted a proposed $149 million 2026–27 final budget by voice vote, proposing a 4.45% tax increase (about $2.3 million) and funding for restored staff, new hires and a $2.365 million K–12 reading curriculum (paid over two years). CFO Debbie Maslowski presented the revenue and spending assumptions.
The William Penn School District Board of School Directors on May 26 adopted a proposed final budget of $149 million for 2026–27, with the district’s finance team outlining plans to restore staff cuts, add classroom and special education positions, and invest in a new K–12 reading curriculum.
"The William Penn School District Board of Directors has reviewed the 26-27 proposed final budget totaling 149 million dollars," CFO Debbie Maslowski said during the board presentation, noting the budget scenario includes a 4.45% tax increase the district estimates would generate about $2.3 million in local revenue.
Maslowski told the board the proposal prioritizes three goals: restoring staff reductions from 2025–26, adding staff needed to support schools (including elementary instructional facilitators, assistant principals and special-education positions), and addressing curricular and technology investments. She said the new K–12 reading curriculum carries a $2.365 million price tag that the district negotiated to pay over two years.
Board members asked for alternate tax scenarios to compare impacts. "If you could give us 2.9, 3.0, 3.5 and 3.9 percent scenarios," said a board member during the discussion; Maslowski agreed to prepare multiple scenarios for the finance committee ahead of final adoption.
During a voice vote the board approved the proposed final budget as the board’s proposal for public review and required next-step process. The vote was taken by voice; the board recorded no roll-call ‘no’ votes during the meeting.
Why it matters: The proposal restores classroom capacity and aims to reduce contracted services by bringing roles in-house, but it also increases local tax burdens under current revenue assumptions. The administration said state subsidies and a homestead exclusion distribution help offset some household impacts; Maslowski explained how the homestead exclusion and assessed-value calculations factor into the per-household tax change.
What’s next: The administration will supply alternate tax-scenario worksheets to the finance committee and prepare for final adoption by the statutory deadline (no later than June 30). The board’s adoption at this meeting was for the proposed final budget; a final adoption vote is scheduled after the statutory public-notice period and committee review.
