Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee warns of steep special‑education costs as district budgets for 4.17% tax proposal
Summary
Finance staff told the committee they submitted a referendum exception for special‑education costs to PTE and highlighted a large gap between 24–25 actual special‑education spending ($8.1M) and the current budgeted line (about $5.5M); staff said CCIU billing lags complicate forecasting and pledged a detailed April review.
Kennett Consolidated School District finance staff warned the board that special‑education costs are driving budget pressures and that the district has filed a referendum exception with PTE to account for higher special‑education expenditures.
At the committee meeting, the finance presenter said the district submitted its preliminary budget to PTE and “filed our referendum exception for special education cost.” He explained PTE will certify a dollar amount rather than a millage rate and reiterated that the board retains discretion when approving a final millage. The preliminary budget includes a proposed 4.17% tax increase, staff said, but the board can reduce the proposed millage when it finalizes the budget.
Staff laid out the cost drivers: special‑education spending has climbed sharply in recent years, driven by increased placements, personal‑care assistance (PCAs) and outsourced contracted services. The presenter said the district’s closed‑year actuals for 2024–25 were about $8.1 million in special‑education spending while the current adopted budget line sat near $5.5 million — a shortfall that the presenter attributed partly to lagged Chester County Intermediate Unit (CCIU) invoices and increased utilization of external vendors.
The presenter said CCIU billing is lagged and opaque in some line items and that a second‑quarter bill arriving within weeks will allow staff to reconcile last year’s actuals with current estimates. “When we get that second quarter bill, we're going to go line by line and compare it,” he said, noting the district expects to present more detailed object‑level comparisons at the April meeting.
Staff listed mitigation steps: re‑examining vendor contracts and placements, pursuing accurate enrollment and service trends, and reviewing the district’s self‑insured medical/prescription claims for possible savings. The presenter warned that sustained special‑education growth beyond index levels will force hard choices: seeking referendum relief, reallocating funds or trimming other programs.
The board asked for additional trend data (e.g., counts of aides, outplacements and internal staffing over a 10‑year span) to help interpret whether dollar increases reflect utilization growth or cost inflation. Staff agreed to return with more granular comparisons and supporting documents at the next meeting.
