Mifflin County SD board removes proposed cuts from agenda, opts to use reserves while weighing tax options

The Mifflin County SD school board voted Thursday to add the removal of a slate of proposed budget cuts (items a–v) to the agenda and to rely temporarily on assigned fund balance while the district considers tax options later in June.

At a public meeting in Lewistown, business manager Mrs. Knepp told the board that a projected 20% health-insurance renewal and other cost pressures have pushed the district’s preliminary 2026–27 deficit to about $6.4 million. She said payroll (salaries and benefits) makes up roughly 64% of district spending and that the district has about $29 million in total fund balance (roughly $21 million assigned and $8 million unassigned) available for use.

The vote followed more than two hours of public comment. Adam Runk, a parent and financial advisor, said the district’s debt-service burden is unusually high: “Mifflin County School District spends 7.8% of our entire budget paying off money this board borrowed. The typical Pennsylvania district our size spends 3.6%,” he said, and argued recent borrowing and stadium change orders have increased annual interest costs by roughly $4 million—about the same size as the proposed teacher cuts. Several parents and teachers warned that increasing class sizes, eliminating positions or charging students to play sports would disproportionately hurt disadvantaged and special-education students.

During the presentation, Mrs. Knepp described three broad options for closing the gap: use reserves, raise revenue (including a millage increase under the Act 1 index or other scenarios), or reduce expenses. She emphasized that administration provided a list of possible cost-savings for board consideration but that the list was not an administration recommendation. Knepp also addressed financing for the district’s new athletic complex, stating that the stadium was funded in part by a $5 million note payable from Kish Bank and that bonds issued in 2024 were refinancing rather than new borrowing specifically for the stadium.

Board discussion turned to whether to remove several items from the list of possible cuts. A motion to add the removal of options a–v to the agenda was moved and seconded; the subsequent roll-call vote was recorded as passing. After that vote, board members and administrators recommended using assigned fund balance to balance the immediate budget and scheduled further action: the board will post a proposed budget for public inspection and revisit tax resolutions in June, when it can decide whether to seek a millage increase.

Public commenters pressed the board to consider modest, sustained tax increases instead of program and staff cuts. Teacher and parent speakers repeatedly cited research on class size and the district’s high percentage of economically disadvantaged students; several urged the board to prioritize classroom staff and vocational programming. One commenter proposed monetizing the new stadium as a regional venue to generate revenue rather than cutting positions.

The board did not adopt any permanent reductions at Thursday’s meeting. The administration will post the proposed budget and supporting documents for the required public-inspection period; the board is scheduled to consider tax resolutions and the final budget in June.