Upper Darby SD proposes 3.95% tax increase, would use $6.1M of fund balance to balance 2026–27 budget

The Upper Darby School District Finance & Operations Committee reviewed the proposed final general fund budget for 2026–27, with administration asking the board to move the plan forward for a vote at the May 12 board meeting and to present a final budget at the June committee meeting.

CFO Craig Rogers said the proposed budget assumes a 3.95 percent tax increase (above the base index of 3.5 percent and below the adjusted index of 5.1 percent). The presentation included 100 percent of the governor's proposed education funding amounts; Rogers said the district included the governor’s proposals fully this year after previously budgeting a smaller share.

Rogers presented high‑level revenue and expenditure figures: revenues shown in the packet (before the proposed tax increase) totaled roughly $284.7 million, and proposed expenditures were about $290.8 million, producing a gap of roughly $10.6 million. Applying the proposed 3.95 percent tax increase would add approximately $4.5 million to revenue and reduce the gap so that about $6.1 million of fund balance would be needed to balance the budget.

Rogers summarized major revenue drivers: local revenues (about 44 percent of total revenue, nearly 39 percent from annual real‑estate taxes), state increases tied largely to the foundation and ready‑to‑learn block allocations (a cited foundation increase of about $8.1 million and a foundation total figure discussed in the presentation around $18.26 million), and modest changes to federal program funding. He also listed capital grants and projects included in the plan (bus‑stop arm camera program; DCD life‑safety grant; solar projects at Hillcrest and Stonehurst; various capital projects previously approved).

On the expenditure side, instruction represented about 62 percent of spending and salaries/benefits account for roughly 60 percent of costs. Rogers highlighted purchased services increases (notably special‑education costs and tuition), an almost $8.3 million increase in certain purchased services categories and an overall $13.7 million increase in salaries/benefits and purchased services combined.

Rogers warned that special‑education costs are a critical pressure point: he said the district receives roughly $12.5 million in special‑education subsidy from the state while special‑education cost increases this year approach similar magnitudes. "In special ed, we're almost increasing the budget this year close to what our total share from the special ed subsidy is from the state," Rogers said.

The committee asked detailed questions about the durability of foundation/adequacy supplements (Rogers said many of the one‑time supplements have been rolled into a larger foundation figure but cautioned that added adequacy supplements are unlikely to repeat next year). Rogers explained fund balance categories and recent audited closeout figures: audited FY24‑25 total fund balance about $31.5 million, unassigned about $8 million; the district used $5.3 million of fund balance at FY24‑25 closeout. He said the proposed $6.1 million use in 2026–27 will significantly reduce unassigned reserves if enacted and is not sustainable as an ongoing strategy.

Board members asked whether cuts should be pursued immediately rather than relying on fund balance or a tax increase. Rogers said the administration will continue to refine the May and June presentations, seek possible expenditure reductions and look for revenue opportunities, but emphasized that many costs (contractual salaries, benefits, special‑education and tuition) are driving a constrained budget environment.

The committee agreed to advance the proposed final budget to a May 12 vote and to present a final‑budget vote and any legislative changes at the June committee meeting. No final budget adoption occurred at the committee meeting.