Pine‑Richland officials weigh 2.1% millage increase to close $1.2 million shortfall

Pine‑Richland School District officials presented two budget options at a May 12 finance joint governance meeting, saying the district faces a $1.2 million operating deficit for 2025–26 and could close that gap either by using one‑time fund balance or by pursuing a 2.1% millage increase.

The presentation, delivered by Doctor Miller and district finance staff, framed the recommendation as a structural response to multi‑year forecasts. “The biggest part of tonight's finance meeting is a discussion between 2 options … no millage change, 0%, or a 2.1% recommended increase,” Doctor Miller said, adding the choice affects not only 2025–26 but projected deficits in subsequent years.

The nut of the discussion was forward‑looking: after cuts that reduced an initial roughly $3.1 million deficit to the current $1.2 million, administrators said relying on reserves would accelerate depletion and leave the district with a larger structural shortfall in later years. The presentation projected a $4.8 million deficit in 2026–27 under a zero‑millage scenario and larger deficits thereafter unless revenue or structural changes occur.

Administration described the 2.1% millage increase as a measured, structural revenue action intended to preserve “academic excellence, athletics, arts and activities.” The district estimated that a 2.1% increase would raise the millage rate to about 19.998 mills and would cost the owner of a $250,000 house roughly $105 a year (about $8.77 per month); the district also noted the homestead exemption credit will increase by $37 for qualifying homeowners and that a voluntary senior tax rebate program remains available.

Finance staff and board members reviewed steps already taken to reduce the deficit. Administrators said cuts and efficiencies over the past year reduced the initial shortfall from roughly $3.1 million to about $1.2 million, including the planned reduction of 10.5 positions through attrition. Staff said roughly $1 million of operating revenue was being applied to capital projects in the current year and that the district had used disciplined staffing, debt management and cooperative purchasing to constrain costs.

Board members pressed staff for detail on multi‑year expenditure assumptions. One board member said historical line‑item trends did not match the large increases shown in the district's five‑year projections and requested targeted follow‑up with business office staff. Finance staff said some projections — for example, energy and health insurance — were intentionally budgeted above recent actuals to reflect current market uncertainty; staff cited a health‑insurance projection of 9% for one year while noting the most recent consortium result came in at 5.7%.

Administrators warned of other tradeoffs if the board chose no millage change: deeper cuts, program reductions or larger class sizes in future years. The presentation used examples to illustrate scale — the entire athletic program was listed at roughly $2 million, while the Air Force JROTC program was described as about one‑third of a million dollars — and noted fee increases (activity fees proposed from $100 to $150) would not cover large program costs.

During public comment, three speakers urged the board to protect special education and related staffing. Gemma Mangeri, identified as a Pine‑Richland High School freshman and member of the color guard and Key Club, described relying on learning support teachers and said, “Please… hire a new special education teacher to fill the vacant position next year.” Kirk Howard, a Richland Township parent, urged the board to weigh modest tax increases against cuts that could reduce inclusion and supports for students with disabilities. Doctor Lehi Billhaut, a parent who identified herself as the mother of two district students, said she supported a millage increase and criticized board members who were delaying or questioning the administration’s recommendation.

Board members did not take a final vote at the finance meeting. Doctor Miller emphasized the budget presented is the proposed, advertised budget and that changes can and often do occur before the board votes on a final budget in June. The board scheduled additional follow‑up work and public comment to continue discussion before a formal final‑budget vote.

Clarifying details discussed at the meeting included the current advertised operating deficit of about $1.2 million (reduced from roughly $3.1 million), an announced reduction of 10.5 positions through attrition for 2025–26, a district reserve (fund balance plus capital reserve) projected at about $38 million at the end of the year (down from about $45 million the prior year), and roughly $20 million in identified capital projects over the next three years. Staff said they had cut roughly $130,000 from IT and deferred some device refreshes (reducing the planned Chromebook refresh from four grade levels to three) but cautioned that deferred equipment means many classroom devices will approach or reach unsupported operating systems within a year.

What happens next: the board will review questions raised by members and the public, receive detailed line‑item follow up from business office staff, and consider the advertised proposed final budget at the combined board meeting later in May. Any final budget vote is scheduled for June under the board’s timetable.