Methacton board hears draft 2026–27 budget that would require 5.29% tax-rate increase to balance

The Methacton School District board on May 28 reviewed a draft 2026–27 final budget that shows a 4.12% increase in total spending and revenue and would require a 5.29% tax-rate increase if the district uses the full special‑education exception to balance the books.

Business manager Miss Stephie told the board the draft budget totals roughly $143.46 million and reflects about a $5.7 million increase in spending driven by a $2.1 million (3.8%) rise in salaries, higher benefits and additional special‑education costs. "The 2627 draft final budget includes a 4.12% or $5.7 million increase and totals 143,455,9912," Miss Stephie said during her presentation.

Why it matters: the board would need to apply the district’s allowable special‑education exception and increase the real‑estate tax rate by 5.29% to produce the revenue required under the current draft. Miss Stephie estimated the homeowner impact at roughly $334 annually for a home at the district’s median assessed value ($176,620), which she said equates to a market value around $500,000.

Line‑item drivers and tradeoffs: Miss Stephie detailed major budget drivers including contractual salary increases across bargaining units (about $3 million), a reduction of positions yielding savings (~$1.8 million), a shift from outsourced behavioral and psychology services to in‑house staff (about $1 million reclassified from professional services to salaries), and a $2.4 million increase to align special‑education professional‑services budgets with historical overspending. She also said transportation, tuition for outplaced special‑education students, utilities and curriculum cycle timing influence the numbers. "A tax increase of 5.29% is necessary to present a balanced budget," she told the board.

Board questions and concerns: Board members asked for line‑by‑line clarification on the salary math, confidence in utility cost estimates, and whether budgetary reserves could be used for options such as an external special‑education audit. Several trustees stressed the district needs evidence that spending choices will improve student outcomes before supporting a levy increase. Board member Miss Deal said she could not support the budget as presented and requested an out‑of‑state special‑education audit and clearer documentation tying proposals to instructional priorities.

Next steps: Miss Stephie said the board will consider final adoption at a scheduled special meeting/work session on June 16. She also described a $340,000 budgetary reserve that currently includes $142,000 earmarked for special‑education needs after recent out‑placements reduced the earlier contingency. Miss Stephie warned that additional placements could exhaust that reserve before the fiscal year begins.

The board did not vote to adopt the budget on May 28; trustees solicited additional documentation and clarification ahead of the June 16 final‑adoption vote.