Mehlville R‑IX previews $168 million preliminary FY26 revenue budget, warns of uncertainty

Chief Financial Officer Marshall Crutcher told the Mehlville R‑IX School District Board of Education on March 13 that the district’s preliminary FY2026 revenue budget totals $168,000,000 and that “the theme of the budget this year is really uncertainty.”

Crutcher told the board the district expects more than 80% of revenue to come from three sources — local property taxes, the state formula/classroom trust and sales tax — and explained multiple variables that could increase or reduce revenue before the district adopts a final budget.

The local tax outlook is unsettled because 2025 is a reassessment year, Crutcher said. He said Senate Bill 190, described in the presentation as a real‑estate tax freeze, has an unknown effect on assessed values; the district is budgeting conservatively by assuming 0% residential growth (residential values are roughly 71% of the district’s assessed value). Prop A is scheduled to expire after FY26, representing about $825,000 of future uncertainty, he added. Crutcher also projected a tax collection rate of 96.72% for the budget, midway between recent historical collection rates and FY24 receipts.

On state funding, Crutcher summarized several formula changes and their net effect. DESE’s earlier projection to raise the state adequacy target (SAT) toward $7,145 per student has been revised back toward the current $6,007.60 figure; Crutcher said that change represents about $4.1 million less revenue than the district had anticipated last fall. Offsetting items include more favorable threshold rules for free‑or‑reduced‑price and LEP (about $1.9 million favorable), a new weighted‑average‑membership (WAM) factor that Crutcher estimates at about $500,000 favorable, and a 1% prior‑year reimbursement that adds roughly $200,000. Net of those items, Crutcher said the district is roughly $1.5 million below earlier expectations.

Crutcher emphasized attendance‑based risk. For FY25 he estimated average attendance at 91.5% (conservative versus recent averages of about 91.76%–91.98%). Because the state true‑up uses actual attendance, he warned the variance could produce a roughly $1.65 million unfavorable to $2.0 million favorable swing — an amount that could effectively double as the budget is rolled into FY26.

On sales tax, the presentation noted reimbursement per WAM falling modestly (from $15.13 to an estimate of $14.95) but that a higher WAM in the calculation keeps overall sales‑tax revenue roughly steady.

Board members asked clarifying questions; Peggy Hassler and other trustees discussed the statewide context, including a referenced teacher‑salary measure (spoken of as “7 27”) and other bills proposing changes to assessment percentages. Crutcher repeated that the district is intentionally conservative in its assumptions — 0% SAT growth, 0% residential growth and a conservative attendance estimate — to avoid late‑year adjustments that could force midyear cuts.

Next steps: final state budget details expected in May and county reassessment data later in the summer. Crutcher told the board to expect a continuing process of updates and potential true‑ups as actual attendance and state decisions are finalized.