Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Methacton administration proposes 4.9% tax increase; board presses for detail on special‑education contingencies
Loading...
Summary
Administration presented a proposed 2627 final budget requiring a 4.9% tax increase to cover a $1.3 million operating deficit, adding special‑education contingencies and recommending some previously reduced operations be restored; board members pressed for more line‑item detail and historical special‑education data.
Methacton School District administration asked the board on April 21 to approve a proposed final 2627 budget that would require a 4.9% tax increase if the board adopts the recommendation next week.
Budget lead Miss Steffy said the proposed expenditures total $143,084,606.81 against projected revenues of $141,754,506, leaving an operating deficit of about $1.3 million. To address ongoing and unpredictable special‑education costs, Steffy said the administration added $175,000 to the budget for special‑education liability and recommended an additional $150,000 contingency to cover cases that might arise during the year.
"I'm asking the board to approve a 4.9% tax increase, which is necessary to maintain a balanced budget," Steffy said. She also summarized other changes since the preliminary budget: a net reduction of five MEA positions and one administrative position, a $100,000 projected transportation savings from transitioning certain van services to a new third‑party provider, the addition of one psychologist and one long‑term substitute, and a 38% increase in workers' compensation costs driven by a higher number of claims.
Board members questioned several tradeoffs. Some members pressed for clearer line‑item detail tying earlier cuts to the proposed add‑backs, and asked for the draw schedule tied to the high‑school renovation so finance can confirm timing of cash outlays. Multiple board members asked for historical data on special‑education settlements and a five‑year trend so the board can evaluate whether the proposed contingencies are sufficient.
Several members flagged personnel choices: the administration proposed adding a long‑term substitute at the high school for a social‑studies position and restoring the number of psychologists to eight full‑time equivalents (seven district employees plus one MCIU contracted position in the cost plan). Members who had earlier supported potential reductions to four coach‑related long‑term substitutes asked administrators to reconcile why the budget now adds a different long‑term substitute while those coach‑related positions remain in place.
The administration recommended several limited add‑backs if the board accepts the full special‑education exception, including $100,000 to restore curriculum refresh capacity ahead of a social‑studies refresh year, $150,000 more for special‑education reserve, and funds to restore preventative maintenance and technology items. Administration said those add‑backs would be financed using capacity created by position reductions and, if approved, the special‑education exception under Act 1.
Board members requested more granular documentation (line‑item detail, case management summaries, and a five‑year special‑education cost trend) that the administration agreed to provide ahead of the final adoption in June. The work session did not include a formal vote on the tax increase; the proposed final budget will appear on the board’s voting agenda next week.
