Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget 2627 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Dublin finance staff flag $4.2M multi‑year gap, cite rising special‑education and pension costs
Summary
The district’s draft 2026–27 budget projects about $131.6M in expenditures, personnel making up roughly 72% of costs; administrators outlined an operational gap of roughly $1.2M and a long‑range deficit near $4.2M if a $3M capital transfer to fund Jarrett Town proceeds, citing PSERS and special‑education costs as primary drivers.
Upper Dublin School District finance officials presented a detailed draft budget overview to the Finance Committee on April 21 and described multi‑year pressures driven primarily by personnel costs, PSERS employer rate increases and rising special‑education expenses.
Mr. Lechman (district finance) reported a draft total expenditure baseline of about $131,600,000 for 2026–27. Personnel costs account for approximately 72% of the budget (about $60M wages and $36M benefits). The administration proposes a $3,000,000 annual plan transfer to the capital reserve to fund future debt service for the Jarrett Town Elementary project; when that transfer is included, the district’s draft shows a near‑term total budget gap of roughly $4.2M and an operational deficit of roughly $1.2M.
Lechman and Dr. Smith outlined the principal cost drivers: the employer contribution to PSERS (noted in presentation as ~33.59% for the year) has increased materially over recent years and is expected to remain a major cost for districts; health‑care costs are trending near the consortium’s 8% forecast; and special‑education costs are rising because of increased out‑of‑district placements and growing demand for services. The finance team said PSERS and special‑education shifts account for multi‑million‑dollar changes relative to prior years.
Dr. Smith described enrollment and staffing projections driving position counts, including kindergarten section planning and secondary course‑based sectioning. She said two staffing priorities have emerged for next year: (1) an additional autistic‑support classroom (driven by case loads and early‑intervention students) and (2) continuation (and potential conversion to contracted status) of a teacher‑on‑special‑assignment to deliver intensive reading interventions (Wilson instruction). The administration noted that attrition and program adjustments could offset some new positions and said it expects to provide further details at the May education committee and in upcoming board briefs.
Committee members asked for comparative metrics (per‑pupil spending, millage/tax rates and capital‑reserve trends), questioned high athletics travel costs and suggested earlier recruitment for hard‑to‑fill special‑education positions. Administration said the budget narrative posted with the agenda includes capital reserve trends and other background data and offered to prepare additional comparative charts for the June meeting.
What’s next: May will be the proposed final budget and June the final adoption. Administration said it will continue to refine projections, present alternatives to close the gap (programmatic choices, staffing/attrition, potential adjustments to the planned capital transfer) and return with detailed materials at upcoming committee and legislative meetings.
