Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Riverview School officials outline budget shortfall and weigh millage increase, bond options

Riverview School District Board · May 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Riverview School District finance staff presented a proposed final budget showing about a $235,000 gap and described millage‑increase scenarios and a possible bond to fund an auditorium; board members and residents pressed for scenarios that avoid a multi‑year "funding cliff."

Sheila Lubert, the district's director of finance and operations, told the board the proposed final general fund revenues total $29,365,000 and she presented line‑by‑line assumptions as the board prepares a final budget next month. Lubert said the district faces rising healthcare and contractual costs and is projecting a roughly $235,000 shortfall on the budget she showed the board.

"We have general fund revenues of 29,365,000," Lubert said, adding that roughly $17 million of the budget is spent on instruction and that local revenues account for about 71 percent of district funding. She described the state Basic Education Fund and special education increases proposed in the governor's budget and noted continuing uncertainty over final state figures.

The board discussed three millage options Lubert modeled: a half‑mill increase, an intermediate 0.8925‑mill option she also presented, and raising millage to the Act 1 index (3.5 percent). Lubert showed how each option would increase revenues and what could be set aside to cover a first year of bond debt service if the board decides to proceed with capital projects.

Board members raised long‑term concerns. One board member warned that using the millage increase revenue and earned interest to cover only the first bond year could create a funding cliff later. "If that does not generate another 400,000 in interest for year 3, then you have a funding cliff," the member said, urging the board to consider teacher contract negotiations due next year and other rising costs.

Lubert and other officials outlined bond‑payment scenarios from preliminary estimates: in one example a $10 million bond produced a budgetary impact in the mid‑hundred‑thousands in the first year and higher annual payments in later years depending on interest rates and structure; district staff discussed using a bank‑qualified bond structure and the possibility of refinancing after an initial call period.

Public commenters at the first citizens' hearing urged balancing urgency and prudence. Resident Wendy Wilton said grants should be pursued but warned against delaying a project that may face rising costs if the district waits for uncertain grant funding. Other residents asked the board to see the auditor's debt‑to‑budget figures so the community can judge whether a proposed bond would leave the district financially sound.

The board agreed to tighten the budget numbers and revisit scenarios at an upcoming meeting, including more detailed projections that factor in possible teacher contract increases and multiple bond‑size scenarios. Lubert said she will provide more explicit cash‑flow scenarios and simulations showing the delta each millage option would generate and how it would hold up under different interest‑rate and retirement/contract assumptions.

Next steps: the proposed final budget remains on the schedule for approval next month and the board asked staff to return with scenario analyses (millage options, detailed bond payment projections, and the impact of likely teacher contract increases) before any final vote.