Pennsylvania law sets limits on how much school districts can raise property taxes each year. That limit is called the Act 1 Index — a state-imposed “speed limit” designed to protect taxpayers from unchecked increases.
For the 2026–2027 school year, Souderton Area School District’s Act 1 Index is 3.5%, meaning the district can raise property taxes by up to that amount without special permission. But this year, Souderton is signaling something alarming: even the maximum increase may not be enough. The district is preparing to apply for an exception — permission from the state to raise taxes above the legal cap.
This is not happening in a vacuum.
Over the past three years, Souderton taxpayers have already absorbed a 13.95% increase in school property taxes. Now, the district is once again asking residents to pay more — but this time, they can’t even stay within the guidelines Pennsylvania has set.
The question we should all be asking is simple: Why?
Could this growing financial pressure be tied to years of poor decision-making and misplaced priorities?
In 2024, the board voted to spend $6 million on a turf baseball field — a vanity project serving a small percentage of students while core needs across the district remained unmet.
In 2025, the board unanimously eliminated the per capita tax, not because taxpayers demanded it, but because it was reportedly “too much work” for the elected tax collectors to administer. These are paid positions. If someone campaigns for a job but cannot perform its basic duties, perhaps the community should be making better choices in all elections — not simply shifting burdens onto property owners.
Even more troubling is the district’s growing pattern of confidential legal settlements.
In just the last year, Souderton has entered into 15 confidential settlements and releases, costing taxpayers at least $750,000–$900,000 in known payments, and likely $1.2 million–$1.6 million or more when multi-year commitments are included.
These agreements come with gag orders that prevent families from speaking publicly about what they endured simply to secure the educational services their children are legally entitled to receive.
And gag orders matter.
Confidentiality clauses mean:
- The public can’t fully understand what went wrong
- Patterns remain hidden
- The same issues repeat again and again
Taxpayers are left funding problems they are not allowed to see or fully understand.
What makes these settlements especially disturbing is their common thread: many involve families who had to threaten litigation before the district would provide appropriate educational support.
How many times do we allow this cycle to repeat?
How many taxpayer dollars are spent not on classrooms, not on safety, not on students — but on settlements that keep the public in the dark?
These agreements protect the institution, not the community. They silence families, shield administrators, and leave taxpayers footing the bill without transparency or accountability.
And yet, even as the district prepares to request permission to raise taxes above the Act 1 limit, the board continues approving new spending.
Last month the board voted to upgrade the high school tennis courts at a cost of $1.5 million, despite the existence of a lower-cost option closer to $700,000 using asphalt — the same material as the current courts.
District officials also acknowledged that the courts have not been maintained according to manufacturer recommendations. The last recoating was reportedly done in 2012, even though resurfacing is recommended every five to seven years. Once again, taxpayers are being asked to pay not just for upgrades, but for years of neglect.
And for what return?
The district has approximately 60 tennis players, many of whom learned the sport through private lessons because there are no tennis programs or courts at the middle school level to build participation over time.
This is what makes the district’s tax increase request so difficult to accept. The community is not refusing to support education. We are refusing to support reckless spending, deferred maintenance, secrecy, and priorities that serve the few while burdening the many.
These financial decisions affect every taxpayer, every homeowner, every family trying to stay in this district.
If we want change, we must start showing up, speaking up, and demanding that the board focus on what matters: transparency, safety, responsible budgeting, and a district that serves all students — not just select projects and protected insiders.
The Act 1 Index exists for a reason. If Souderton is already trying to exceed it, the public deserves to know exactly why — and exactly what we are paying for.
