Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pine-Richland officials outline options to close roughly $5M deficit; preliminary budget adoption set for Feb. 9
Summary
District finance staff told the joint governance meeting the operating deficit is about $4.98 million and presented options — including using Act 1 index plus special-education referendum exceptions that could raise the millage by an estimated 5.2–5.3% — while proposing structural expenditure cuts and revenue strategies. The board will consider adopting a preliminary budget on Feb. 9 to preserve those options.
Pine-Richland School District officials said the district faces an operating deficit of roughly $4,980,000 and laid out a mix of tax, revenue and structural options to close the gap, including adopting a preliminary budget on Feb. 9 that would preserve the option to apply for special-education referendum exceptions.
"Last time in December, with a no millage increase, we're around a $4,980,000 operating deficit," Mr. Jeswick, the district’s finance presenter, told the joint finance governance meeting. He said the administration modeled three options: no millage increase, raising the Act 1 index (3.5%), or applying the index plus referendum exceptions — the latter combination would add roughly 1.7–1.8 percentage points to the index and produce an estimated total increase of about 5.2–5.3 percent, depending on final assessment calculations.
The preliminary-budget filing would include the exception amount required by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) so the district retains the option to increase revenue later if PDE approves the exception, officials said. "This will give us the options," Mr. Jeswick said, emphasizing that filing a preliminary budget does not by itself raise taxes.
Officials warned the district’s revenue picture has worsened since January because of falling county-certified assessments. "Since January, we've lost $626,000 in revenue," Mr. Jeswick said, noting that those losses include any growth added to the tax rolls and continue to exert downward pressure on interim real-estate receipts.
Administration presenters outlined the other side of the ledger — expenditure reductions that would produce recurring savings. Doctor Miller and Mr. Glickman described attrition and targeted position reductions as the largest structural lever. They reported that 12.5 positions have been reduced since the end of the 2024–25 school year, a mix that included teachers, paraprofessionals and custodians, and that the first 10.5 reductions saved about $870,000.
The speakers cautioned that further staffing savings are limited because the district already compares favorably on staffing ratios. "We don't have additional positions that we don't need or that we could eliminate without impact," Mr. Glickman said, arguing most further savings will come from attrition rather than deep immediate cuts.
The administration also cited operational changes and revenue opportunities: recalculated cyber-charter tuition forms that reduced projected per-student costs, renegotiated substitute-service margins, tighter building budgets, staged textbook and digital-resource contract renewals, targeted athletic-program adjustments (including possible changes at the middle-school level), revised activity-fee structures, increased advertising and naming-rights efforts, and pursuing a cell-tower lease that presenters estimated could net roughly $60,000 per carrier annually.
On the special-education cost side, Mr. Jeswick showed the worksheet PDE requires to compute exceptions; he said an approved exception would add about $1,157,000 in potential revenue under the modeled scenario but stressed PDE approval is not guaranteed. One board member questioned why the district must include the exception amount in the preliminary filing before PDE decides; presenters replied that PDE’s process requires the exception amount to be entered to preserve the district’s right to that option later.
The board set a timeline for public notice and action: a public notice to adopt a preliminary budget is to be issued Jan. 16, and the formal preliminary-budget adoption vote is scheduled for Feb. 9. No formal vote on a tax change occurred at the meeting.
What's next: the administration will return with more detailed numbers and options on specific revenue and expenditure moves, including the cell-tower lease terms, projected advertising and naming-rights revenue, and the staffing recommendations tied to April staffing cycles. The Feb. 9 preliminary-adoption vote would lock the district into a filing that preserves the referendum-exception option but would not by itself obligate the board to raise the millage.
