Finance committee warned Act 1 index and rising health‑care costs could create multi‑year budget gaps

At a finance committee meeting, Mr. Lentz presented a multi‑year budget forecast and warned that benefit and salary trends could outpace the district's expected revenue growth.

"So we talked about the Act 1 index, and it is projected out," Mr. Lentz said, reporting that current data points to a 3.2% base index for the 2027–28 budget cycle. He explained that the district's proposed final budget for 2026–27 includes a 1.9% tax increase and that the forecast scenarios assume a 2% property‑tax increase beginning in 2027–28.

The presentation listed the core revenue and expenditure assumptions used in the forecast. On the revenue side, Mr. Lentz said the district assumes about 1% annual growth in the tax base and modest local revenue gains (for example, a 1% assumption for real‑estate transfer and earned income taxes). He cautioned that state funding remains uncertain and that recent 'adequacy funding' targeted at underfunded districts has affected local revenues.

On expenditures, Mr. Lentz said salaries and benefits are the primary cost drivers. He projected a roughly 4.2% increase in salary costs (about $2 million), pension and Social Security costs that rise with salaries, and an assumed 10% health‑insurance trend in out years. "When you look at the benefits coming together with salaries as a whole, you're looking at anywhere from a $4,000,000 to $5,000,000 increase at this standpoint with these projected trends," he said.

Mr. Lentz singled out prescription‑drug costs—specifically GLP‑1 medications—as a growing pressure on the district's health plan. He reported plan enrollment and spending moving from 37 members and $218,000 in 2022–23/23–24 to a projected 123 members in 2026–27 with plan costs approaching $1.5 million. "This is one of the largest drivers that any employer is dealing with with regards to spending increases on health care," he said.

Mr. Lentz emphasized the lag in benefit claim data and the constraints of negotiated consortium contracts for benefit‑design changes, noting any plan adjustments would occur as part of collective negotiation processes.

Chair Dr. Gilfezler asked for additional revenue detail by property type. "Is there any way you can break that down?" he asked, seeking a residential vs. commercial revenue split. Mr. Lentz agreed to produce a historical and billing‑based breakdown after final budget approval.

The committee set a follow‑up schedule: the district will close out the current fiscal year and begin detailed 2027–28 budget work this fall; the next finance committee meeting was set for Sept. 8 at 6 p.m. The meeting was adjourned with no roll‑call vote recorded in the transcript.

The presentation and discussion provided the board with early, scenario‑based estimates rather than final decisions; Mr. Lentz and staff identified follow‑up tasks (a revenue breakdown and further benefit‑data analysis) to inform later budget choices.