Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposed $138.47 million 2026–27 budget and debates support‑staff pay increases
Summary
Finance staff presented a proposed $138.47 million general fund budget and recommended a 2.9% real‑estate tax increase to reduce the projected shortfall; board members voted to amend a proposed support‑staff salary matrix to restore higher top‑tier increases and asked administration to bring an amended chart to the May 21 vote.
The board received an updated look at the proposed final general fund budget for fiscal 2026–27 and discussed support‑staff compensation guidelines ahead of next week’s voting meeting.
Mrs. Robbins, presenting the budget, said projected expenditures are about $138.5 million and projected revenues at a 0% tax change are roughly $134.9 million, leaving an estimated shortfall of about $3.5 million. She said the administration’s recommended scenario is a 2.9% real‑estate tax increase — a millage of 18.1421 — that would produce approximately $2.36 million in additional tax revenue and reduce the projected ending deficit to about $172,000 after planned one‑time fund‑balance uses (~$943,000). Robbins said the district will continue to refine assumptions (special‑education intermediate unit costs and assessment updates) before a final vote and that the proposed final budget will be published for public inspection following board approval.
Board members asked how much additional increase would be necessary to fully balance the budget; Robbins estimated that another ~1.2 percentage points (bringing the increase to roughly 3.1%) would likely close the gap based on current assumptions.
On compensation, administration proposed support‑staff increases tied to 2025–26 performance ratings with recommended movement of exemplary 5%, excellent 4.25%, good 3.5% and below average 0. Several board members and public commenters urged restoring last year’s top tiers (exemplary 6%, excellent 5%), and a motion was made to amend the presented matrix. Board members argued the change was affordable and important to retain and reward support staff. The administration agreed to prepare an amended chart for the May 21 voting meeting that would set exemplary at 6% and excellent at 5% while leaving other categories as presented, and to treat the change as a one‑time decision subject to future holistic compensation review under the new HR director.
A public commenter who identified herself as a special‑education paraprofessional said staff received short notice about the matrix change and requested better advance communication next time; the board and administration acknowledged the concern and committed to improving notice to staff.
