A special meeting of the Bensalem Township School District board on Wednesday night opened with a bombshell: the administration had been operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of state law, one that rendered months of budget planning — and weeks of public anxiety over a possible 8.25% tax increase — moot from the start.
The district, it turns out, is ineligible to seek Act 1 referendum exceptions, which is the mechanism that would have allowed it to pursue a tax increase above the state-imposed cap. Districts that receive “adequacy funding” from the Commonwealth cannot apply for those exceptions — and Bensalem has received that funding. The restriction is written clearly in state law. It is not obscure.
Superintendent Dr. Lee acknowledged the mistake at the outset of the meeting, taking personal responsibility for what he called an oversight in the planning process. But it was board member Karen Winters who actually discovered the error — the night before the meeting, while reading a legislative report at a Bucks County Intermediate Unit gathering.
“It took approximately 2.3 seconds,” Winters said Wednesday, her frustration barely contained. She had spent the past month losing sleep over the prospect of imposing an 8% tax increase on her neighbors, friends, and family. And it was never an option.
Board President Dr. Deborah King did not mince words. The board, she said, had been “misinformed by our administrators.” Karen Winters laid out a damning timeline: in February 2024, the board was told the district was “in good financial shape.” In October 2025, they were assured the district could sustain itself on local revenue “until March or April.” Then, on January 28 of this year — a half hour before the board voted to seek Act 1 exceptions — administrators provided materials telling board members they were eligible for those exceptions.
They were not.
“This board would never even have had this discussion, put many of you through emotional turmoil, wondering how you would afford your taxes,” King said, “had we not been misinformed.”
What the Board Actually Voted On
With the 8.25% scenario off the table entirely, the board voted Wednesday night to adopt a proposed preliminary budget built around a 4.2% tax increase — the maximum the district can impose under the Act 1 index without going to voters in a referendum.
The vote was not without dissent or protest. Several board members made clear they were voting aye only because it is a required procedural step under Pennsylvania law — not because they endorse the budget as presented. Board members Allen and Winters voted no. Others added statements to their votes, noting that the situation they found themselves in stemmed directly from the misinformation.
“I want to remind everybody where we started this meeting — with the enormous misinformation we had as a board,” one member said before casting her aye. “It is a bad look for all of us, but here we are trying to fix the problem.”
This Is Not the Budget
Residents need to understand what Wednesday’s vote does — and does not — mean.
The preliminary budget is a required step in Pennsylvania’s school budget process. It establishes the maximum tax increase the district may seek and sets the framework for the work ahead. It does not finalize the tax rate. It does not determine what programs will be cut or what positions, if any, will be eliminated. The final budget must be adopted by June 30.
And the math in that preliminary budget is stark.
At a 4.2% tax increase — representing a millage rate increase from 181.33 to 188.95 — the district projects total revenues of approximately $193 million against total expenditures of $204 million. That gap leaves the budget with a negative unassigned fund balance of $10.2 million before any cuts are made. The district’s cash reserves are projected to drop from $19.7 million this June to $8.5 million by June 2027 if nothing changes.
In other words, the district cannot simply tax its way out of this crisis. Even at the maximum allowed increase, it is nearly $10 million short — and that preliminary budget does not yet include any of the cost reductions being considered.
“The budget shortage is approximately $11 million with a 4.2% tax increase,” Business Manager John Steffy confirmed at the meeting, later clarifying the number is closer to $12 million.
Cuts on the Table
Dr. Lee presented a list of options for the board to consider as budget work continues — and the board was careful to note these are the administration’s ideas, not board decisions. Nothing has been approved.
Among the options presented Wednesday:
Staffing reductions across all employee groups. The administration put dollar figures to those possibilities: eliminating Act 93 administrator positions could save up to $2.7 million; reductions among the BTEA teaching staff up to $2.3 million; custodial and maintenance staff $793,000; secretarial positions $262,000; paraprofessionals $206,000; and confidential staff $116,000. Together, those figures total roughly $6.4 million — still well short of the deficit even if all were enacted.
Closing the Bensalem High School pool.
Closing the district’s administrative building at 3000 Donallen Drive — where board meetings are held — and redistributing staff and functions across the district. The Bucks County Intermediate Unit has been identified as a potential tenant, which could generate rental income.
Redistricting.
Reducing secondary program options for students.
Eliminating nursing services at Catholic schools in Bensalem. The district currently pays for two nurses at non-public schools in the township.
Exploring alternative providers for related services such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech services.
Restructuring the district’s existing debt. Financial advisors from PFM Financial Advisors and underwriter Stifel presented a proposal to restructure the district’s 2013 and 2020 bond series — approximately $34.8 million in debt — into two new 2026 bond issues.
The restructuring would provide meaningful short-term relief, saving the district roughly $3 million per year from 2027 through 2032. However, residents and board members should understand the full picture: those savings reverse sharply beginning in 2033, with net annual costs of $4–6 million per year through 2038 as the extended debt comes due. The total present value cost of the restructuring is a net loss of approximately $1.36 million — the district would pay more overall in exchange for near-term cash flow relief.
What Drove the Crisis
District administrators reiterated Wednesday that the underlying cause of the financial crisis is not discretionary spending. Dr. Lee told the board and public that if you strip out mandated costs — charter school tuition, special education obligations, and pension contributions — the district has increased its expenditures by less than 5% over the last 10 years.
What has exploded is what the district cannot control. Business Manager Steffy confirmed that of the roughly $50 million in purchased services in the proposed budget, approximately $26 million goes to charter school tuition payments — covering students from Bensalem who attend more than 30 charter schools, brick-and-mortar and cyber. An additional $13 million goes to Bucks IU for special education services, and more goes to approved private schools for students with significant disabilities.
The state formula that sets charter school tuition rates — particularly the flat-rate calculation for students with IEPs — continues to be the central pressure point. Multiple speakers during public comment called for state-level charter reform as the only durable solution.
Public Comment
The room was packed. Residents who had come prepared to fight a possible 8.25% increase were met instead with the news that the increase had been taken off the table before they arrived — though not by choice.
Frank Goldstein, a longtime homeowner, told the board the financial shortfall “had its roots in the past several years” and called on the board to demand the state change charter school funding legislation. He also criticized the administration for promoting plans for a new middle school while the district’s finances were deteriorating.
Brenda McMillan, a 53-year Bensalem resident who leads a union of 250 school support staff, said the taxes had become unsustainable for the people who work in the schools as much as those who simply live here. “We can’t afford to keep working here or living here,” she said. She also offered the current board a rare vote of confidence from someone who had long since tuned out:
“This is the first board I’m actually listening to that I’m hearing — and I’m hearing that you want to do what’s right.”
A parent whose son attends School Lane Charter School pushed back on what he described as the vilification of the school in public coverage, saying he chose it for legitimate reasons. He acknowledged the fiscal problem is real but said the issue runs deeper than any single charter school — it’s a structural funding problem that predates the current crisis.
What’s Next
- February 25 / next Wednesday: Regular board meeting. Public comment available.
- March 3: Community meeting at Bensalem High School. Board members will lead a session open to all residents to discuss the budget situation and answer questions.
- March 11: Budget workshop. All operations cost centers, and reduction options will be reviewed. Open to the public.
- June 30: Deadline for final budget adoption.
The board also indicated it will discuss restoring a second public comment period at future meetings — a procedural change that would allow residents to comment after the business portion of meetings, not just before.
All figures in this article are drawn from the preliminary budget document adopted February 18, 2026, and from presentations made at the meeting. The preliminary budget is available through the district’s Board Docs portal at bensalemsd.org.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed to Board President Dr. Deborah King the timeline of administrative misinformation presented at the February 18 meeting. That account was given by board member Karen Winters. The article has been updated to reflect the correct attribution. Bensalem Weekly regrets the error.
