The Upper Perkiomen School Board voted to approve a tax increase for next year's budget that is slightly smaller than initially proposed. Last week, after 40 minutes of debate, the members approved a $88.171 million budget for 2026-27 with a 0.75 percent millage increase.
            Monica Oswald, Leah Cianfrani, Paige Konopelsky, Peg Pennepacker and President Melanie Cunningham voted to ratify an additional $537.89 in tax increase for the average property owner on Thursday, June 25.

            Vice President Keith McCarrick, Trina Schaarschmidt, Sarah Bieber and Elizabeth Fluckey voted against the motion that requires the district to utilize $2.208 million from its reserve fund to balance the budget.

            Sanda Kassel, who worked as the district's business administrator for 38 years before retiring in 2021, characterized it Tuesday afternoon as the district's largest tax hike since her tenure began in 1983-84.

            Moments earlier, following the resumption of a June 18 regular meeting, the members rejected another motion to approve a one percent millage increase during the continuation of a June 18 meeting. Pennepacker cast the decisive vote to defeat a proposed tax that would have cost residents an additional $550.50.

            Prior to voting on the budget, the board displayed a slide that included seven different proposed scenarios, ranging from a negative two percent millage decrease to a one percent millage increase – for a property assessed at $126,000 – identifying the amount of revenue generated and the required use of fund balance. Cunningham said she put the information together and shared it with the members.

            The transfer from its general fund leaves the district with approximately $2.792 million in savings. According to Konopelsky, that amount could increase to $3.85 million under a best-case scenario.

            The members unanimously approved a Homestead/Farmstead Exclusion resolution from the June 18 meeting. It accounts for a tax reduction equal to either $330.46 or the total tax liability for the assessed value of the homestead, according to the language of the resolution.

            Residents and taxpayers filled the meeting room at the district's Education Center. Several expressed their displeasure at not being allowed to ask questions. Cunningham described it as an "unhappy fact."
            Edward A. Diasio – a partner with Wisler Perlstine, the district's appointed solicitor – denied multiple requests for the audience to ask questions. He said that the two comment periods on the agenda passed before the board recessed the meeting on June 18. Members admonished members multiple times for their interjections.
            "If we can't ask questions, then why are we here?" one person in the audience asked rhetorically.
            McCarrick said he couldn't deal with a one percent millage increase. He told the audience that the board is dealing with years of previous system failure, and that the members are doing their best to correct it.

            "It's going to take years," McCarrick said during the meeting, reading from a prepared statement. "We are told to control costs, but it is difficult since we have no control over outside factors which increase our expenses."

            The board vice president also directed administrators to identify all programs and activities as required or optional. McCarrick said the board had no plan to cut any programs, but that he wanted the public to understand how much each costs.

            There is no simple fix other than to just keep moving forward and doing the best we can with what we have," the member said.

            Schaarschmidt, who asked to allow public comment anyway, claimed the board did its best to deal with several imperfect options. She said either option to raise taxes does not solve the district's long-term financial issues.
            Pennepacker, participating remotely, thanked everyone on the board for their comments. She said the members need to do a better job explaining their actions to the public.

            Superintendent Allyn Roche and Business Administrator Drew Bishop did not attend the most recent portion of the meeting.

            Seven days earlier, the members voted to table a vote on the 2026-27 school year. They approved Schaarschmidt's motion to push off a vote on a 12.8 percent increase amid constituent complaints by a 5-4 vote.

            Before that the board rejected a proposal by McCarrick to implement a tax hike with a slightly smaller increase. Only he and Fluckey voted to increase taxes by 9.3 percent, which would have cost the average property owner an additional $397 and would require a transfer of $3.6 million from the general fund to make up a budget deficit.