Pine‑Richland administrators propose 9.5 position reduction as board weighs 2.1% millage option

At its April 21 meeting the Pine‑Richland School District presented a recommended package of staffing and revenue changes to reduce an operating shortfall, and the board instructed administrators to prepare two proposed budgets — one that includes a 2.1% millage adjustment and one that does not — to be advertised on May 12.

The administration detailed a recommendation to reduce 9.5 full‑time equivalent positions for 2025–26: 4 paraprofessionals, 3.5 teachers (by attrition), and 2 custodians. Superintendent Doctor Miller said staff is the district's largest expenditure, and administrators proposed the combination of these reductions plus modest structural revenue increases to narrow a projected deficit.

Doctor Miller said the proposed staffing changes represent part of a broader effort to both reduce recurring spending and pursue additional revenue sources. "We know the most significant expenditure is staff," Doctor Miller said while describing the recommended reductions and the district's multi‑year planning process.

Administrators estimated the identified 9.5 position reductions would save about $706,000. Doctor Miller and staff also described proposed structural revenue steps under consideration, including activity and parking fees and revised facility‑use rates, and presented millage scenarios: a 2.1% increase (about 0.41 mills, roughly $1.36 million in revenue at current assessed values) and a 4% increase (about 0.78 mills, roughly $2.6 million).

Board discussion ranged from members who said the district should rely on reserves and further cuts this year to members who argued a modest, proactive tax increase now would make future years’ budgets less painful. Several board members and the superintendent warned the operating gap could grow materially in 2026–27 if structural action is postponed. Doctor Miller said without additional revenue the district could face a substantially larger deficit later: "If we do nothing this year, one year from now the deficit could be closer to $5–6 million," he said.

Public speakers raised related concerns during the meeting's public comment period. Parents and community members asked the board to retain learning‑support staff and paraprofessionals, noting that those positions serve students with IEPs and 504 plans and that attrition‑driven cuts could have a "snowball effect" on mainstream classrooms and interventions.

After about an hour of discussion, board leadership asked administration to prepare and advertise two proposed final budgets for the May 12 meeting: one reflecting no millage change and one reflecting the 2.1% millage recommendation, so the board would have both options for the public finance meeting and subsequent action.

The board did not adopt a final budget at the April 21 meeting; the administration will bring proposed budgets for advertisement on May 12, with final adoption scheduled for June per the district calendar.

The discussion continued in the district's finance committee and will be the subject of a detailed budget review on May 12.

Ending — The board’s decision to ask for both budgets preserves options heading into the formal advertisement period; administrators said they will return with detailed line‑by‑line comparisons and the community will have opportunities at the May finance meeting and the May 12 regular meeting to review the proposals.