Pine‑Richland draft budget shows $2.8M operating gap; board weighs leaning on reserves, fees or up to 4% millage

District finance staff presented a first draft of the Pine‑Richland School District 2025–26 general fund budget to the finance joint governance meeting, reporting an operating deficit of roughly $2,776,000 and seeking options that range from structural revenue changes to temporary uses of reserves.

Chris Jeswick, speaking for district finance staff, summarized the draft numbers and drivers: increased salary and benefits, higher special‑education tuition and growing utility costs. Jeswick said the draft assumes no millage increase and that the district reduced the draft capital program this year from $8.9 million to $6.9 million to manage cash flow. He said projected salary and benefit increases account for the largest portion of the budget change and that the district budgeted a 1% increase in state basic and special education funding in line with the governor’s proposed state budget.

Why it matters: Jeswick said the district’s current operating shortfall is about $2.776 million, that the district plans limited use of fund balance and capital reserves, and that without structural action the board would need to continue drawing reserves. He noted the district would have about $29 million remaining in combined fund balance and capital reserve after planned transfers and uses under the draft.

Board discussion focused on options to close all or part of the gap. Jeswick recommended raising the millage to the Act 1 index cap of 4% to generate roughly $2.6 million of recurring revenue and reduce the need for repeated draws on reserves; “My recommendation… is 4% increase up to the Act 1 index to maximize that revenue,” he said. Dr. Miller, a board member, said she favored a combined approach of structural and temporary actions and suggested an increase in the “upper twos to lower threes” percentage range coupled with cost reductions elsewhere. Another board member said a 4% increase was “not one I can support” and suggested a smaller increase around 2% as an initial compromise.

Staff discussed other structural and temporary actions: reviewing transportation routes to protect or increase the state transportation subsidy; adjusting facility‑use, participation and parking fees (staff estimated those three items combined could raise roughly $100,000–$125,000 annually); delaying nonessential technology refreshes as one‑time savings; and using assigned fund balance to offset one‑time retirement incentive payouts. Jeswick said the district currently has about $1.5 million in assigned fund balance that could be used for debt reduction or to offset one‑time payouts, and cautioned that such uses reduce reserves available in later years.

Public comment reflected differing views. Kathleen Rivati called on the board to “solve this via expense cutting and not trying to generate top line revenue,” citing recent county tax increases and the possibility of a reassessment. Britney Kindersmith, a Richland Township resident, urged support for a millage increase, saying a 4% increase would “only result in a $78 increase for every $100,000 worth of assessed value” and called it “digestible” to maintain programs. Jennifer Buse, speaking in person, cited a district stakeholder survey and said parents reported satisfaction with current programs and that most stakeholders prefer activity fees over course reductions; Buse urged the board to “please listen to the stakeholders.”

Next steps and timeline: Jeswick said staff will prepare an updated draft for the March 17 meeting, aim to present a proposed final budget for board approval on May 12 so it can be advertised, and work toward final adoption in June. Board members requested an “Option B” — a no‑millage alternative — showing what structural cuts would look like in dollar terms to compare against the millage‑increase proposal.

No formal budget vote was taken at this meeting; the presentation was a draft update and staff returned to the board for further direction.