East Penn SD presents $2 million in staffing priorities; administration says package implies about a 5% tax increase

Emmaus, Pa. — The East Penn School District presented a second round of budget priorities for 2024–25 at its April 8 board meeting, asking the board to consider roughly $2,000,000 in new positions and program funding that administration said would translate to about a 5% real‑estate tax increase as currently drafted.

Superintendent (addressed as) Doctor Campbell outlined the priorities, and Mr. Saul, the district’s finance presenter, said the detailed documents calculate a 4.99% increase that the administration is describing publicly as 5%. Campbell said the draft budget package includes roughly $2,000,000 in new positions and that removing those priorities would lower the tax-impact scenario to about 3.2%.

The administration’s prioritized hires included one full‑time school psychologist for Emmaus High School (increasing that building’s allocation to about 2.5 positions), an elementary autistic‑support teacher, an elementary learning‑support teacher (proposed for West Coastville Elementary), three additional instructional assistants for autistic‑support classrooms, conversion of six part‑time instructional‑assistant positions to full time, and one English and one math teacher at Emmaus High School. Administration also proposed adding one counselor to support middle‑level and VESPA students and an assistant principal position targeted at larger elementary schools that would later shift under the district’s planned K–8 realignment.

“Right now we are including approximately $2,000,000 in new priorities or new positions in the draft of the budget,” Doctor Campbell said, explaining the district had phased approximately $5,000,000 of anticipated realignment staffing needs across a three‑year plan. “If all of these priorities are included in the budget, it’s about a 5% tax increase. If all of these $2,000,000 in priorities were removed … the tax increase would be approximately 3.2%.” (Doctor Campbell attributed the numerical examples to the administration’s budget scenarios.)

Administrators said the school‑psychologist role is driven by rising mental‑health needs, increased special‑education evaluations and mandatory duties including psychoeducational evaluations under Chapters 14 and 15 and support for Section 504 and IEP processes. Officials said an inability to staff required special‑education placements would force the district to place students outside the district — an outcome administrators said is typically more costly.

On classroom staffing, Emmaus High School leaders said average honors English classes were running about 30–31 students this year and Algebra I averaged about 27.5 students; the requested positions aim to reduce averages (targets cited included about 22 for co‑taught classes, 24 for on‑level and 28 for AP/honors). The administration emphasized that averages can shift because of summer move‑ins and reseatings.

Board members pressed administration on the tax impact and asked whether the new positions could be phased over multiple years. “What I’m looking for is a way to balance these needs versus the impact on our taxpayers,” said Board Member Mister Jankowski. Administrators and Mr. Saul said the district had already modeled a three‑year phase tied to the realignment and identified capital‑reserve contributions and other adjustments as tools to smooth near‑term impact. Mr. Saul also explained changes to revenue assumptions and one‑time funding moves that reduced pressure on next year’s numbers, and he described a proposed committed fund‑balance set‑aside of $2,000,000 this year plus $550,000 annually to support a technology infrastructure program.

Board members also asked operational questions about filling hard‑to‑recruit positions. Several members noted national and statewide shortages for school psychologists and questioned whether the district’s budgeted placement at a “master’s step 7” salary would be sufficient; administrators said the district honors prior public‑school service in salary placement and that hiring at higher steps may sometimes be necessary.

Mr. Saul said the district would present a proposed final budget at the April 22 meeting and then adopt a final budget at the June 10 meeting. He added that the proposed final budget is a procedural step required 30 days before adoption and could change between April 22 and June 10 if material circumstances change.

Administration materials and board discussion made clear several tradeoffs are possible: removing the $2,000,000 in prioritized additions (and instead preserving capital reserve contributions) moves the illustrative tax‑rate scenario from about 5% toward the lower 3.2% scenario the administration presented. Mr. Saul advised the board that state funding developments — including the governor’s proposed adequacy supplement — remained uncertain and could materially alter final numbers.

The board did not take a final vote on the budget priorities at the April 8 meeting; administration will return with the proposed final budget on April 22 and the final budget in June.