Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mehlville R-IX board adopts fiscal 2026 budget; discusses Prop A renewal and Prop S project updates
Summary
The Mehlville R-IX board on June 26 approved the district's final fiscal year 2026 budget, discussed Prop S project completions and next steps, and reviewed draft ballot language to renew Prop A capital funding.
The Mehlville R-IX School District Board of Education on June 26 adopted the fiscal year 2026 budget and discussed the district’s Prop S capital projects and a proposed Prop A renewal ballot.
Marshall Crutcher, the district’s chief financial officer, presented the final FY26 budget and an executive-summary “14-point” overview he said captures the district’s key financial assumptions. The board approved the budget by voice vote, 7–0.
Crutcher said the operating budget is balanced to net zero by reallocating $2.2 million from the capital fund into operating for FY26. He reported a cash reserve of 30.5% and described a capital-fund revenue estimate of about $19 million for FY26 (down from $21.2 million the prior year) while noting that the district had spent about $33.3 million of work tied to the Prop S GO bond (roughly $37 million bond program total).
The CFO told the board the budget includes conservative assumptions for attendance (budgeted at 91.5% vs. FY24 actual 91.98%), tax collections budgeted at 96.72%, and an assumed 10% increase in health-insurance costs effective January 2026. He identified $16 million of projected cash available for capital-project priorities and listed recurring capital infrastructure needs (roofing, buses, asphalt, IT) at roughly $2.3 million per year.
On Prop A, Crutcher presented draft ballot language prepared by the law firm Gilmore & Bell for a Prop A renewal. He said the draft was designed to roll existing debt levy amounts so that the renewal would be “no tax increase” by offsetting debt-service reductions; the final cent amount could change with property valuation (AV) data expected in July. The proposed language would limit the use of funds to capital infrastructure items such as buses, roofs, parking-lot maintenance, IT equipment, building security and HVAC, Crutcher said.
Board members discussed clarity of ballot language for voters and the need for community advocacy and education if the board places the measure on the ballot. Crutcher said the finance committee had already reviewed the language and that if the board advances the measure it would return for a final vote in August.
Later in the meeting Crutcher reviewed summer projects tied to Prop S, listing roofing, asphalt and HVAC work across schools; he reported roofing projects for two middle schools at about $465,000, asphalt work of about $350,000 and HVAC upgrades totaling roughly $17.5 million for this summer, with additional projects budgeted next summer for several schools. He described Mosaic elevator phase 2 as the immediate scheduling focus after the awarded bid.
A motion to approve the FY26 budget as presented passed 7–0. The board also approved action items by consent (items A–I) by a 7–0 vote later in the meeting.
