Tax, budget and legal-fee concerns surface as Pine-Richland board reviews finances

Several Pine-Richland residents used the public-comment period at the Feb. 24 board meeting to press board members about a proposed tax increase for the 2025-26 fiscal year, the district’s large fund balance and sharply higher legal spending.

The board approved financial items during the meeting, including accounts payable and paid accounts, budget transfers and a contract for a budget model, while reminding the public that a joint finance governance meeting is set for March 17 to continue budget discussions.

“I’m calling tonight to share my thoughts about the proposed … increase our taxes,” said Therese Dawson (online), who urged the board to “do a strong review of what is and is not necessary to forward academic excellence,” and to consider the needs of taxpayers without children in district schools. Other commenters also asked whether technology purchases, such as Chromebooks for young students, are necessary and raised questions about fiscal priorities.

Several speakers criticized the board’s use of outside counsel and legal expenses. In public comment, Chris Caffardi said the district spent $626,000 on legal fees in the prior fiscal year and noted that, halfway through the current budget year, legal bills already approached $286,000. He said the trend “is on pace this year to spend $573,000 on legal fees.” Amy Caffardi and other commenters asked the board to explain legal spending and urged fiscal restraint before approving any millage increase.

Board and administrative actions during the meeting included approval of financial reports dated Dec. 31, 2024, accounts payable in the amount of $931,704.85 and paid accounts for January totaling $3,000,002.83 (figures as presented to the board), and approval of budget transfers totaling $568,957.76. The board also approved a contract with PFM for a budget model. Each of those motions passed on voice votes; some later budget conversations were scheduled for public finance meetings.

Board solicitor and legal counsel addressed questions about whether a prior workshop or budget session had violated open-meeting rules. A public speaker said an executive session earlier that day may have violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act; the solicitor responded that the session had been informational and that “no deliberation occurred,” calling the workshop compliant with the Sunshine Act.

Administrators told the board they are still developing options for addressing an operating shortfall for 2025-26 and would present scenarios at the March 17 meeting; options discussed in public included no millage increase (with corresponding expenditure reductions) and other scenarios that could include a millage increase of up to several percent. The administration noted the district’s sizable fund balance in public comments and said more work is needed before any millage decision is finalized.