Pine-Richland considers millage increase, activity-fee changes and staffing cuts to close $4.7 million gap

Dr. Miller, a presenter for Pine-Richland School District, told the board on April 20 that the district faces a projected $4.7 million deficit for the 2026–27 General Fund and recommended a package of staffing reductions, one-time savings and revenue increases to close the gap.

The administration said two levers drive the fiscal plan: staffing (largely through attrition) and real-estate tax revenue. Under the Act 1 process the district received a special-education referendum exception that would allow it to raise an additional $1.157 million from property taxes; administration modeled both an index-only hike (3.5%) and an index-plus-exceptions scenario that would total about 5.29% and produce more revenue.

Why it matters: administrators said pushing beyond the immediate $4.7 million target toward roughly $6 million in combined actions would better position the district for 2027'28, when officials project a continuing multiyear shortfall if no structural changes are made.

Administration presented a mix of structural and one-time items. Officials said staffing attrition has already been applied to extract roughly $1.1 million in recurring savings; other structural actions include reviews of building budgets, reductions to some athletics supplements and technology-device savings. One-time items cited included a smaller-than-expected health-care premium increase and deferred purchases.

On revenue, the administration laid out several changes intended to raise recurring dollars. They described four activity-fee models (Options A'D) that would change per-student charges for athletics and non-athletic activities and shift marching band into the non-athletic category. Option C, a per-activity menu with a $400 per-student cap, produced the largest activity-fee projection; Option D, a modified menu with a $300 cap, was presented as a more moderate, scalable step. Administration also proposed ticketing changes, a tiered booster contribution for use of digital scoreboards and modest increases to facility-use and parking fees.

Board members pressed for detail on how estimates were calculated and how families in financial need would be protected. Dr. Pasquinelli, who explained the activity-fee options, said fee waivers for qualifying families would continue and that the district has tools such as online payments that could ease administrative burden. Several members expressed concern that raising fees and parking at the same time could disproportionately affect households with multiple participants.

Treasurer Mark Kashani's written statement, read into the record, urged a more measured approach: Kashani recommended a 4.2% millage increase paired with $2.1 million in structural reductions and $560,000 in one-time cuts as a two-year catch-up rather than taking the full allowable increase.

No formal vote was taken. Administration asked the board to narrow choices ahead of a May 4 finance meeting, noting that leaning toward Option D (the $300 cap) plus ticketing and booster adjustments would be a likely next step while leaving open the option to revisit a C-style approach later.

What's next: the board scheduled further discussion for May 4; administrators said they will provide additional worksheets and recommended math so members can test the household and revenue impacts before any formal millage or fee proposal is advertised for final action.

Sources: Remarks and slides presented by Dr. Miller and Dr. Pasquinelli at the April 20 Finance Joint Governance meeting and a written statement from Mark Kashani, Director and Treasurer.