The Wallingford‑Swarthmore finance committee on Nov. 18 presented a detailed FY27 forecast and recommended steps to address a projected shortfall of roughly $2.6 million.

Ms. Mosley, presenting financial details, said the district’s taxable assessed value is about $2.6 billion and that Act 1’s base tax‑index for the 2026–27 year is 3.5%, constraining local revenue growth. Reviewing the FY26 general fund ($105,352,610.45), she said much of the budget has limited flexibility — for example, principal debt service and required contractual education service agreements — and that personnel and benefit costs are the largest drivers of future increases.

Ms. Mosley flagged several specific pressures: salary and related retirement (PSERS) increases, projected prescription‑cost growth (projected +30.14%, about $803,000), bus‑lease increases and an anticipated custodial contract increase tied to updated square‑footage calculations. She said the district received $791,000 in FY25 receivables and expects another roughly $3 million imminently, but noted those receipts do not eliminate the structural spending increase.

Doctor Johnson framed the situation succinctly: “It’s not a revenue challenge. It’s a spending challenge,” and urged the board and community to prioritize spending choices. Johnson and Mosley outlined next steps: internal meetings with budget managers to identify 4–5% reduction scenarios in their areas, community and faculty conversations in December (including Dec. 8 town sessions), a board retreat on Dec. 1, and a proposed board resolution in December to set the board’s priorities for the FY27 budget.

The administration suggested strategies to reduce costs while protecting classroom services: review contractual services, examine attrition options (with caveats about impact on the classroom), improve inventory management, and reconsider non‑mandated services (for example, kindergarten transportation is not statutorily required). The presenters said the capital plan increases pressure on the budget but is not the sole cause of the shortfall; they showed that even without the capital plan the district would face a material deficit.

Board members and community participants asked about custodial staffing and the basis of a proposed headcount increase; operations explained a prior procurement specification and square‑footage formula that indicated a shortage of custodial headcount and said the district will draft new cleaning specifications as part of upcoming procurement. Several members thanked staff for transparency and urged broad community engagement.

No binding budget decisions were made; the committee set a schedule for further study, stakeholder meetings in December and return to the board with scenarios ahead of the May budget adoption.