At a November finance committee meeting, Boyertown Area School District finance staff told board members the district’s draft 2026–27 budget could be brought close to balance if local revenues remain strong — but officials warned the outcome hinges on uncertain state adequacy funding and recommended planning for about a 2% property tax increase.

The presenter (Speaker 1) said the draft revenue total for next year is about $156.8 million, up from roughly $148.8 million in the prior budget, driven largely by higher earned income, real estate transfer taxes and interest earnings. “The budget looks like it can sustain a balanced budget or a nearly balanced budget at this point off of a 2% property tax increase,” Speaker 1 said. The draft assumes a $3.3 million transfer to the capital reserve and a $500,000 budget reserve.

Why it matters: the state is still working through how to distribute adequacy funding required by a court ruling. Speaker 1 told the committee the district’s estimated adequacy gap is about $13.3 million and that the district has received $1.4 million toward that total so far, leaving roughly $11.9 million outstanding. Board members said because the state allocation and timing remain unclear, the district should not assume those funds when finalizing the local budget.

What officials told the board: staff emphasized three drivers behind the forecast. First, local revenues are higher than previously budgeted — Speaker 1 used a $10 million estimate for earned income tax receipts based on recent actuals rather than the $8.5 million figure that had been budgeted. Second, personnel costs (salaries and benefits) are the single largest expenditure driver; Speaker 1 noted total salaries and benefits are roughly $102 million in the forecast and that health insurance is currently estimated to rise about 10%. Third, special education tuition and charter placements can be expensive; the presenter cited a per‑student charter special‑education placement cost on the order of $30,000 as an example.

Board questions and clarifications: members pressed staff on the sources of the current favorable year‑to‑date variance. Speaker 1 attributed most of the positive variance to lower‑than‑budgeted salary expenditures and some prior‑year refunds; the district is projecting a positive year‑end balance of about $4.3 million, but staff warned that a final state budget could change that figure. One board member (Speaker 4) asked whether the lower expenditures reflected hiring fewer teachers or other staffing changes; Speaker 1 said some vacancies and the timing of hires have contributed to lower actual salary spending in the current year.

Cash and investment posture: in response to questions about bank protections, Speaker 1 said the district uses collateralization rules on investments to protect principal and may lock in longer‑term certificates of deposit to hedge interest‑rate volatility; accessing those investments early would reduce yields.

Policy constraints and next steps: the presenter reiterated the district operates under Act 1 tax rules, which limit how much property tax revenue can be raised without exceptions. Given the unknowns around state adequacy funding, Speaker 2 (chair) said the district will not budget on the expectation it will receive the full court‑identified amounts until the state provides a clear funding plan. Staff will return after the holidays with a refined forecast and supporting data, including requested collector disbursement records for the outlier year in 2023.

The committee set its next meeting for Feb. 10, 2026, at 6 p.m. in the education center. The meeting adjourned afterward.