Methacton school board adopts $137.8 million 2025-26 budget, approves 4.45% tax increase

Methacton School District board members on June 17 approved a $137,776,916 general fund budget for the 2025–26 fiscal year and a 4.45% increase in property taxes, voting 5–2 on the motion. The administration said using the Act 1 special education exception was necessary because the proposed increase exceeded the 4% Act 1 index.

The budget presentation was given by the district’s director of business services, identified in the meeting as Ms. Steffey, who said the final budget reflects a net reduction in expenditures from earlier drafts and a continued focus on “fiscal responsibility and educational excellence.” Ms. Steffey told the board that June adjustments produced a net expenditure decrease of $1,970,000 from a January preliminary figure and that the final spending total is $137,776,916. “Between February and May, various additions and reductions were proposed that resulted in a net expenditure decrease of $1,970,000,” she said.

The administration recommended a 4.45% tax increase to balance revenues and expenditures; Ms. Steffey told the board that the increase is needed to avoid using fund balance and to cover special education costs that exceed the Act 1 index. Using Montgomery County median homestead values, she said the typical homeowner could see an increase of about $269.25 on the annual tax bill.

Why it matters: the tax action uses the state’s Act 1 special education exception, which permits districts to exceed the Act 1 index when special education costs rise above the cap. Board members debated whether to cap the increase at 4.0% and accept a reduction in the district’s debt-service allocation in the short term; the administration advised against moving money from debt service because it would limit future borrowing capacity for capital projects.

Key budget details and board discussion - Final general fund expenditure: $137,776,916 (administration’s June figure). - Recommended tax increase: 4.45% (exceeds the 4.0% Act 1 index; administration recommended using the special education exception). - Revenue adjustments noted: June revenue changes included a $297,776 reduction (Ms. Steffey). - Savings and reallocations: a $98,000 cost savings tied to a provider change and reduction of one psychologist position in the REACH program; an additional $20,000 allocated for implementation of the community cares program; June net adjustments of $56,888 were reported. - Salary/benefits: the administration reported limiting the salary increase to 1.1% and a strategic reduction of staff (multiple positions eliminated or not filled were listed in the presentation).

Board members asked detailed questions about line-item categories, the planned emotional support program at Eagleville, how reductions in contracted services were achieved, and the trade-offs of capping the tax increase at 4.0% versus adopting 4.45%. Questions were raised about whether a 4.0% cap could be achieved by reducing debt service allocations; the administration said that technically that change could produce a balanced budget but warned it would reduce the district’s borrowing capacity for capital work. Ms. Steffey said the difference between a 4.0% and 4.45% increase is roughly $407,000 in the first year and that the district’s most recent special education settlement cost was about $409,000.

Public comment and board reaction Several residents criticized the process and urged the board to seek additional cuts or defer borrowing. One frequent public speaker, identified in the record as Jim Alec Worsester, urged the board to cut administrative costs and challenged prior budget assumptions. Another resident urged the board to examine interest income, timing of borrowings and other administrative line items. Board members who opposed the 4.45% increase said they believed more work could be done on cost reductions before approving the higher rate; those who supported 4.45% cited rising special education costs and potential longer-term fiscal risks if the district limited the tax increase now.

Board action and vote The board made a motion to approve the 2025–26 general fund budget and the related millage sufficient to levy a 4.45% tax increase. The motion was seconded; the roll call was not read aloud in the transcript. The motion passed 5–2.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Approve general fund budget for fiscal year 2025–26 in the amount of $137,776,916 and a property tax increase of 4.45% (use of Act 1 special education exception). Outcome: approved 5–2. (Mover: Mr. Winters; second: Mr. Mirsky; vote tally: yes 5, no 2 — individual votes not announced in transcript.)

What’s next The administration will implement the approved budget and proceed with the district’s capital borrowing plans as described in the presentation; board members and the administration also discussed further explanation for the public about the differences between a 4.0% and 4.45% scenario and the long-range revenue impacts over several years.