Board reviews updated 2025‑26 budget scenarios; final general fund vote set for June 17

Business manager Ryan Neely presented updated figures and scenarios for the 2025‑26 district budget and reviewed options the board will consider before a final vote on June 17.

Neely said the district’s bond sale was finalized hours before the prior meeting and that PFM provided an updated financial presentation. He told the board the district is still reviewing school and departmental budgets and anticipates additional reductions before the June vote. “We will have the final district general fund budget to be voted upon at our June 17 meeting,” Neely said.

Neely summarized a set of adjustments under consideration: a proposed reshuffling of the administrative side of the student support services department that would increase expenditures by about $132,000 (salary and benefits); an additional insurance savings of $8,382 from auto and liability policies; and a county‑wide agreement that will lower earned‑income tax collection commission with Jordan Tax Service (a new three‑year agreement effective Jan. 1, 2026). He also said contingencies in transportation and student support services were reduced after reviewing likely needs, and private‑school placement costs from the state came in consistent with historical trends.

Neely walked the board through millage scenarios. He noted the district may consider increasing millage to the Act 1 index (a 5.2% index in the Commonwealth), and said, “At this level, our budget would have a deficit of 5,410,000.00 for 02/2526.” He then reviewed the district’s existing millage of 26.7 mills and said that scenario yields an estimated real‑estate revenue of $42,520,000 and would result in a budgeted deficit around $7,690,000 if expenses were held constant. Neely also noted that one collected mill is worth about $1,600,000 to the district and that each quarter‑mill changes revenue by roughly $400,000.

Neely showed household impact examples for different millage increases based on assessed value (not market value). He and board members discussed assessed value versus fair market value; Neely explained the county’s assessed value figures and how the common‑level ratio relates assessed value to market value.

Neely said staff will continue to review staffing contingencies, assessments and revenue figures and incorporate updates into the final June presentation. No final budget vote was taken at the meeting; the board approved several business office items earlier in the agenda but deferred the general‑fund budget adoption to the June 17 meeting.