Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Perkiomen School Board tables budget vote after heated debate over millage increase
Summary
After a night of public comment and extended board debate over a proposed 1% millage increase (which public speakers said equates to double-digit tax impacts when equalization is applied), the board voted to table the budget and recessed to reconvene later for further deliberation.
A divided Upper Perkiomen School Board on Tuesday delayed a final vote on the district—2026-27 budget after more than two hours of public comments and board discussion focused on the proposed millage change and the district's reserves.
The board considered a finance-committee-backed motion to adopt the 2026-27 budget with a 1% millage rate increase. Public speakers and several board members challenged the math and the timing, arguing the way the STAB equalization is applied means the advertised 1% figure can produce an effective double-digit tax increase for some homeowners.
"I think 12% is absolutely ludicrous," said resident Chris Donatelli during the public-comment period, urging directors to table the vote so the board can further review the budget. Another resident, Ryan Halpin, told the board that the advertised 1% "is misleading because that actually equals about a 12% tax increase," and questioned why the district is requesting additional revenue while holding substantial reserves.
Administration and finance staff offered the context the board cited in support of the proposed increase: higher mandated costs, charter-school tuition outflows, and multi-year capital obligations. The district—s business office reported fund-balance and cash figures from the most recent audit, and staff described the committed and unassigned portions of reserves that would be affected by various scenarios.
During board deliberations an amendment to replace the proposed 1% increase with a -2% change (a reduction scenario discussed at a previous meeting) was moved and put to a roll-call vote. The amendment failed on roll call, with seven no votes and two yes votes.
Following continued debate, a motion to table the budget also passed on roll call, 5-4, allowing the board to move on with the rest of the agenda and to schedule a reconvened session to finalize a budget before the statutory June 30 deadline. The board announced a recessed meeting to resume budget consideration on June 25 at 6:00 p.m.; administrators noted alternative dates may be considered to ensure staff availability.
Votes at a glance
- Motion to amend the agenda item from a 1% millage increase to a -2% change: failed, roll-call 2 yes, 7 no. - Motion to table the budget item (move on with other business and reconvene later): passed, roll-call 5 yes, 4 no.
What—s next
Board members and staff said they will continue to share detailed scenario tables (different millage and fund-balance-draw options) with directors ahead of the reconvened meeting so members can deliberate with precise figures. Solicitor Kyle Summers reminded the board of the legal requirement to adopt a budget by June 30 and the procedural options if the board remains unable to reach a majority vote.
The administration also noted it will provide regular updates on hires made under the superintendent—s summer authorization and that some non-budget votes approved that evening (contract renewals, insurance, technology and special-education placements) will feed into the final budget picture.
(Reporting based on the Upper Perkiomen School Board meeting transcript; board reconvened to continue budget consideration.)
