William Penn SD staff outline cuts and three millage options ahead of June 30 budget vote

William Penn School District administrators presented three millage scenarios and the corresponding spending adjustments during a June 23 virtual work session, urging board members to review options ahead of a final vote scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on June 30.

Administrators said a 4.45% millage increase would allow the district to restore positions cut last year. To meet a lower 3.5% increase, staff recommended $493,051 in targeted reductions that include cuts to central professional development, a $25,000 reduction in the strategic plan, and reductions in legal/contracted services. District staff said they renegotiated the new reading curriculum contract to spread payments over three years, preserving an estimated $352,000 in savings whether the board adopts the higher millage or not.

Board members and teachers pressed staff for details about how cuts to professional development (PD) would affect classroom instruction. A teacher who said she participates in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) voiced concern that PLCs are subject-specific and that reductions could leave niche instructional needs unmet; administrators and Dr. Becoats said the cuts are focused on administrative and external PD rather than classroom instruction and noted that school-level budgets still include PD allocations.

Staff presented an alternative 2.9% scenario that would deepen the revenue shortfall to about $804,452 and require larger cuts. Proposed reductions under that scenario included trimming $100,000 from staff technology replacements, reducing a proposed open-gate security rollout from four new units to two (while retaining older devices), cutting $5,000 from dual-enrollment support, delaying or scaling back workflow software ($10,000), and removing funding for two district-wide special-education positions the district had sought to restore.

Administrators told the board they modeled substitute-staff budgets on a current fill rate of roughly 32 percent and recommended reducing substitute funding proportionally; board members expressed concern about potential impacts on teacher leave coverage and said they expect administrators to provide follow-up data. Staff agreed to deliver more detail about which PD line items and building budgets would absorb reductions and to confirm any outstanding June invoices that might affect year-to-date expenditure figures.

On process, staff said the budget resolution and a homestead resolution must be approved and submitted to the state within statutory timelines; the presentation for the June 30 meeting will include the three millage scenarios but may leave the millage number blank for the board to fill at the special meeting. Administrators also committed to adding the 2.9 scenario to the public presentation and to posting or linking a budget FAQ more visibly on the district website before the meeting.

The board did not take formal action at the June 23 work session; members were urged to attend the June 30 special meeting to vote on the final budget.