Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewisburg board previews FY26 budget and proposes flat mill rate amid state and federal funding uncertainty
Summary
At a budget workshop, district staff presented the FY26 proposed budget that holds the mill rate flat at 50.171 mills while warning of state aid declines, a projected local option budget loss, and uncertainty about federal Title II/IV funds that could widen an estimated shortfall.
Presenter (speaker 1) told the Lewisburg Board of Education at a budget workshop that staff prepared a proposed FY26 budget and will publish the packet for public review before the board’s August meeting. She said the board will not approve the budget at the workshop but expects to revisit it at the Aug. 11 meeting and follow a public hearing schedule in September.
The district’s operating authority on slides was presented as roughly $13.0 million for the general fund; staff proposed keeping the mill rate flat at 50.171 mills rather than increasing it. Presenter noted that holding the mill rate flat requires not fully maximizing the cost‑of‑living allowance and that the district could have captured roughly $225,000–$228,000 more by maximizing that option.
Presenter flagged multiple revenue pressures: a projected drop in Local Option Budget (LOB) state support (an estimated $237,000 decline), reductions in Title I/II/IV federal allocations (Title II and Title IV were called out as likely cuts), and ongoing erosion of other state aid lines. Presenter summed the immediate net impact shown on staff slides as about $207,992 in negative pressure; she said that if certain Title funds are restored the gap would shrink to about $168,831.
Staff also reviewed required transfers from the LOB to categorical funds (at‑risk, special education, transportation, bilingual) and listed estimated transfers in the packet, including an at‑risk transfer of about $279,000. The district indicated that certain staffing and program choices (for example, using at‑risk funding to support core teachers at partial FTE levels) are already reflected in the proposed budgets.
On capital planning, staff proposed a $3,000,000 capital outlay authority (budget authority, not a spending plan) to allow for large unforeseen projects; the presentation included planned security camera upgrades at middle and high schools and an amortization schedule that shows a budgeted bond payment of about $500,000. Staff walked through assessed‑valuation scenarios (1%, 3%, 5% growth) tied to bond obligations and discussed fund‑balance management versus early bond retirement.
Presenter emphasized next steps and public deadlines: packet publication for public review, an Aug. 11 board follow‑up, the revenue‑neutral rate and budget hearings on Sept. 8, and a special meeting on Sept. 15 to approve the budget. She invited patrons to submit questions by email to board clerk Jenny Yoder in advance of those meetings.
A procedural motion at the end of the workshop was recorded as "Motion passed." The transcript does not specify the exact motion text or show a roll‑call vote tally.
What happens next: staff will publish the packet, return updated assessment scores later in the fall when the state releases vetted cut scores, and present any revised budget figures at the August and September meetings for formal board action.
