Mifflin County SD first-pass budget shows $6 million shortfall; May 21 special vote planned

Mifflin County SD staff presented a first-pass general fund budget for 2026–27 that projects roughly a $6,000,000 shortfall and relies on several assumptions about state aid, personnel and benefits.

Presenting the budget, Mrs. Lewis, school board secretary and district finance presenter, told the board that Act 1 of 2006 sets the calendar and limits for tax increases and that the district must post a proposed-final budget for 30 days before final adoption. She said the administration will bring the proposed final budget to a special voting meeting on May 21 and expects to adopt a final budget by June 30 (tentatively at the June 25 regular meeting).

Why it matters: the budget under discussion would govern district operations through 06/30/2027 and depends heavily on state funding, which the presenter said accounts for about 55–56% of district revenue. Mrs. Lewis told the board the district holds a healthy total fund balance ("just under $29,000,000" as of 06/30/2025) but is constrained by a state limit on unassigned fund balance of roughly 8% for a district of this size.

Key figures and assumptions: the presenter said 2025–26 budgeted revenue was about $96,000,000; first-pass projected revenues for 2026–27 are roughly $99,000,000 while first-pass expenses total about $106,000,000, yielding the $6,000,000 gap. Payroll remains the largest expense, with salaries and wages presented around $38,000,000; the draft includes a net addition of six positions (three teachers, two paraprofessionals and one administrator) and administration budgeted a 10% working assumption for health-insurance cost increases while benefits negotiations continue.

On fund balance and one-time uses, Mrs. Lewis described the budgeting process as "not just a collection of numbers. It's an expression on our values," and noted the board has assigned fund balances for items such as technology and security that could be tapped for one-time purchases. She also flagged a bookkeeping omission in the current year: a $515,000 principal payment tied to stadium fundraisers was not reflected in the debt-service line, which changes the apparent swing in debt-service costs.

State timing and risk: board members pressed on the risk created by late state budgets; Mrs. Lewis noted last year’s state budget was passed about 135 days late, complicating district planning. She said the presenter’s draft assumes continuation of certain state-level adequacy funding (a $2.5 million advocacy item discussed in the governor’s proposal) but emphasized that such revenue was not guaranteed.

Tax and assessment context: the presenter explained millage math and assessed-value effects (example figures used included a gross value of one mill at about $875,000 and roughly 22,300 taxable parcels). Board members also raised county reassessment timing — the presenter said county reassessments are a county function and noted rules limit how much revenue can rise in the year after a reassessment but did not provide the exact statutory citation.

Collective-bargaining and benefits issues: members asked why some nonunion employees appear to pay the same premium shares as unionized teachers. Mrs. Lewis said negotiated agreements and compensation agreements determine premium-share tiers and that some central-office and confidential staff are covered under compensation agreements that align their contribution rates with teacher tiers; the board discussed revisiting tiers during upcoming Act 93 negotiations.

Next steps: administration will firm up benefit-rate estimates at a May 1 meeting, return with clarifications at the May 7 budget meeting, and present the proposed final budget for the May 21 special vote. The workshop ended with the board asking administration for additional details on staffing costs, benefits and the effect of any Homestead/Farmstead credit allocations before formal action.