[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6681789,"mediaKeyId","2173683-e9d46ff19b1e44860654b7a7c6b54a08","parentId",2173683,"title","After contentious public comment, Methacton board authorizes advertisement of preliminary 2025–26 budget with 5.1% cap for Act 1 special‑education exception","audioSeconds",859,"startMs",3787000,"endMs",4646000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173683-e9d46ff19b1e44860654b7a7c6b54a08&start=3787&end=4646","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173683-e9d46ff19b1e44860654b7a7c6b54a08/thumbnail_3787000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6681789/Pennsylvania/After-contentious-public-comment-Methacton-board-authorizes-advertisement-of-preliminary-202526-budget-with-51-cap-for-Act-1-specialeducation-exception","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681789-83a1245f58e910af43385953700fa1a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771060696&Signature=i6X1BxukTyRlsd2157MOAovT37cLv6yhL0oacKDaB4YODai3v633pVNDnP4wS-qbE7pmT53rpqrWw1galCVkzbaRVyyzlCiXO2oUyh8fRjF5Fubfb~4-xVhy~OQybGpRKfhHO2MSX1HE5gE7cBPEujwjS9UeIjIgr2NKSLIn-hvQ5t4kIcZreZNK-oBnkeBKmOJ3CoPqM1uHvs9MTXHtWFPbsNxZdtK4gqZ68Lw5aIVsg1LRv~waxVfvZO6KlYviJDlh3-gkn6eSWx-8-dRCtka0g5ClE2yqkkcxbdGzCFf4ub26KRfm689QaOxH-9pq2fmx-s3H464id~XaB5SI3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Methacton School District","date","2025-01-29T06:23:39.46Z","article","The Methacton School District Board of Directors voted to make the proposed 2025–26 preliminary budget available for public inspection and to preserve the district's ability to apply for an Act 1 special‑education exception, after an extended public comment period and heated discussion among directors. The final motion as amended caps the advertised, preliminary maximum tax increase at 5.1 percent; the motion passed 6–2.

Superintendent Doctor Zerbe and the district's business office told directors rising special‑education costs are the primary driver of the requested exception. \"This evening's vote allows, for the district to consider if needed to raise property taxes above the Act 1 index to cover increasing special education cost if needed,\" Zerbe said during the presentation.

Why it matters: Pennsylvania's Act 1 process requires boards to either adopt an opt‑out resolution (declaring the district will not seek tax increases above the state index) or to advertise a preliminary budget if the district may seek exceptions. Advertising the preliminary budget preserves the district's ability to request additional tax authority for allowable exceptions — in this case, special education costs — but it does not itself set a final tax rate. Because of statutory deadlines the board faced a procedural deadline at the end of January to either opt out or advertise.

What the administration presented

Business office staff distributed a special‑education worksheet showing year‑to‑year cost growth. Miss Steffi, identified as the district's director of business services, summarized the figures: expenditures for special education rose from roughly $22.3 million in 2022–23 to $25.3 million in 2023–24, and after subtracting state subsidies the net special‑education cost grew from about $19.6 million to $22.6 million. Using the Act 1 index calculation, the business office showed an allowable special‑education exception of about $2.16 million above the Act 1 increase; administrators said the preliminary budget originally presented would have required a 6.3086 percent tax increase to cover projected costs before board amendments.

Board debate and public comment

The meeting drew a long public comment period. Resident Jim Malek criticized the board's pacing and said the district already holds substantial reserves. John Andrews raised concerns about district communications around the high school project and urged clearer wording on motions related to the exception. Sandy Katz, a parent, urged investment in inclusive programming and staff support rather than equating inclusion with higher cost.

Directors split over process and fiscal choices. Several directors, including Kathleen Cleary, said they would not support any vote that left the district open to exceed the Act 1 index. Others, including board members who voted yes, argued that advertising the preliminary budget was a procedural step that preserves options while the district continues to review line items and possible cost controls between now and final budget adoption in May.

A tie vote earlier in the meeting on an opt‑out amendment — 4 to 4 — briefly left the board without either outcome. The board took a short recess and an executive session for legal counsel before returning to reconsider the motions. After further amendments and votes the board adopted a motion to advertise the preliminary budget with a maximum advertised tax increase of 5.1 percent. Final roll call on that motion recorded six votes in favor and two opposed.

Votes at a glance (selected fiscal items)

- 9j (preliminary budget advertisement / Act 1 special‑education exception): motion to advertise proposed preliminary budget and preserve application for Act 1 special‑education exception with a maximum advertised tax increase of 5.1% — outcome: approved, 6 yes, 2 no; legal threshold (majority of 8) met.

- 9g (Solar for Schools grant resolution): the board approved applying for a Solar for Schools grant contingent on the district paying the local share from the capital projects fund; outcome: approved, 8–0 after amendment requiring capital‑project funding for the district share.

- 9a (list of bills / payments): approved as presented; outcome: approved, 7 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (board member disclosed conflict of interest regarding a reimbursement to a family member).

- 13c (settlement agreement referenced on the agenda): approved, recorded as passing (vote noted in the minutes as 7–1).

Board and administration next steps

Administrators said the Feb. 18 schedule will include a special meeting to consider final actions required under the Act 1 process: presentation of any updated budget adjustments and a board vote to submit (or not) for the special‑education exception. Directors and staff also discussed continuing monthly finance‑committee work and targeted reviews of pupil‑services operations, third‑party contracts and staffing as they work toward a proposed final budget in May.

Ending

The board's vote to advertise — amended to a 5.1 percent cap — preserves the district's option to seek additional tax authority for special‑education expenses while committing the board to further budget review. Directors who opposed the motion said the vote did not change their view that the district should not exceed the Act 1 index; proponents said it retained flexibility while they pursue further cost control and program reviews.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 28, 2025, 7:00 PM - Regular Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Methacton School District Board of Directors voted to make the proposed 2025–26 preliminary budget available for public inspection and to preserve the district's ability to apply for an Act 1 special‑education exception, after extended public comment and heated board debate; the amended motion caps an advertised maximum tax increase at 5.1 percent and passed 6–2.","taxTitle","Methacton SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",55561,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6681793,"Methacton board hears schematic update for MacFachin High School; all‑in cost estimate $206M–$219M",1093,1347000,2440000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173683-e9d46ff19b1e44860654b7a7c6b54a08&start=1347&end=2440","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173683-e9d46ff19b1e44860654b7a7c6b54a08/thumbnail_1347000.jpg","/articles/6681793/Pennsylvania/Methacton-board-hears-schematic-update-for-MacFachin-High-School-allin-cost-estimate-206M219M","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681793-be658a342b25e90ec56b545886bc073a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771060696&Signature=CYJ5igzmeCnRKJFV~sfExVgSP3ILLRswPPWO2Gzd2Tx4UUAqr6jB9LoD6Sva~ul7GwbGxi09cA~6dimyIQVNZ6rcrBgnpmjf7~gl5mnGx9EJbcQPN8D7VI0lr3BjieqW7NTqd5JTNxBiwfWP1vt3TGzuzDvsyExP1PEckBJLlPVesHDEUtPeAt2OU3PViRXxIDPWUtM4E5x0wvQllMo7r0ajYF9TMPEhtgm-O8pWzZLOeN0G83gPTIVTjsnoP~InlmqSzuG0aPrkYBwWvcVt-DdVlGmHuKzpMazJoucfcGkVTDRpYwE0Cqh5EDgv-pemHC1r-cVnQ5T6MzsSRqJ8AQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Architects and engineers updated the Methacton School District Board of Directors on the schematic design phase for the MacFachin High School project, presenting a site plan that favors a three‑story academic wing, new athletic fields and upgraded stormwater controls and estimating an all‑in project cost between $206 million and $219 million.

Devin Bradbury of The Schroeder Group said the schematic design phase began in October and \"it's going to take us through March\"; if the board approves the next steps the project would move into design development and then construction documents. Bradbury described a timeline that stretches into 2029: public bidding in March 2026, construction starting in spring–summer 2026, student move‑in targeted for the winter break of December 2028, and demolition/site restoration in summer 2029.

The schematic plan shows a roughly 333,000 gross‑square‑foot building (about 222,000 net square feet of educational program), including approximately 12,000 square feet of district administration space, and a courtyard and separate zones for public functions and academics. \"We're pursuing a 3‑story academic wing for this building,\" Bradbury said, arguing the vertical option reduces the footprint and preserves on‑site fields and parking.

Why it matters: the design and approvals the board reviews now will determine how the district approaches borrowing, bidding and neighborhood impacts. The project will require township land‑development approvals, a statutory Act 34 school‑construction public hearing and conservation‑district signoffs; Josh Grice of CHA warned conservation approvals and some permitting could take up to 12 months.

Key details and engineering notes

- Cost and size: the team presented a current conceptual all‑in estimate of $206,000,000 to $219,000,000, which includes soft costs; grossing factors led to the 333,000 gross‑square‑foot figure and a net program of about 222,000 square feet.

- Program choices: the district administration area remains in the building and could be converted later to provide eight additional classrooms (about 200 students) if required; shared science labs remain under discussion; the pool shown in the schematic is a standard 25‑meter, eight‑lane pool with a bid alternate to expand to a larger pool with a bulkhead.

- Site layout and circulation: the plan separates bus, student and parent access with three distinct entry points to reduce queuing on neighborhood roads and to improve on‑site flow. Bradbury said the goal is to keep most traffic and queuing on site rather than on adjacent local streets.

- Athletics and fields: the plan restores varsity baseball, adds a varsity softball field (both planned with lighting), and preserves and resurfaces existing tennis courts rather than relocating them. Designers showed multipurpose practice areas to replace some existing open space.

- Stormwater and geotechnical work: Grice said on‑site infiltration testing and geotechnical borings are ongoing; because codes now require stormwater capture for the entire disturbed area the team plans both above‑ground basins and underground detention under parking and fields to address neighbor concerns about runoff and erosion.

- Traffic and neighborhood engagement: a traffic impact study is scheduled to start in February; the design team reported they met with adjacent property owners and with Worcester Township on Jan. 11 and Jan. 13 to gather feedback and to identify zoning and circulation concerns for future township hearings.

Questions from board members

Board members pressed the team on parking and student capacity. Josh Grice and the civil engineer said they are still finalizing parking calculations; one designer said \"somewhere in the 500 range\" had been discussed but cautioned that number was preliminary. The administration clarified the design intent was to provide parking for all seniors and roughly half of the junior class, which the architects estimated could translate to about 600 spaces depending on final decisions about staff/visitor allocation.

Board member Kathleen Cleary asked the difference between net and gross square footage; the architects explained the 222,000 figure is the programmatic net and a grossing factor was applied to reach the 333,000 gross number to account for corridors, mechanical and support space.

Next steps and approvals

The team said the schematic design phase runs through March, after which the board will be asked to approve moving into design development. An Act 34 public hearing on the plans, program and budget is planned in design development. The architects reinforced that subsequent phases will require separate board approvals and public permitting, and that any final construction borrowing will be timed to market conditions and to board direction.

Ending note

Designers asked the board to expect additional public input opportunities at the township and district level as the team finishes schematic work and begins technical submissions. The board did not take a construction vote at the meeting; the discussion was limited to the schematic design update and the schedule and next review points.

","Architects and engineers updated the Methacton School District Board of Directors on the schematic design phase for the MacFachin High School project, presenting a site plan that favors a three‑story academic wing, new athletic fields and upgraded stormwater controls and estimating an all‑in project cost between $206 million and $219 million.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

After contentious public comment, Methacton board authorizes advertisement of preliminary 2025–26 budget with 5.1% cap for Act 1 special‑education exception

Methacton board hears schematic update for MacFachin High School; all‑in cost estimate $206M–$219M