Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Tax Rate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board approves 3.0-mill tax increase after heated budget debate
Summary
After hours of debate and failed attempts to hold the line at a zero increase, the Southmoreland School Board approved a 3.0‑mill property tax increase to fund the 2026–27 budget; trustees discussed cuts, new positions and the monthly impact on homeowners.
The Southmoreland School Board voted 5–4 on May 19 to adopt a 3.0‑mill property tax increase to support the 2026–27 budget, after an earlier motion for a 0‑mill increase failed.
The board considered multiple budget scenarios presented by Treasurer Missus Mondock, who outlined what would be cut under a zero‑mill option and the monthly cost to property owners at different mill levels. Using county calculations, the treasurer said a 1‑mill increase would raise the median homeowner’s tax by about $0.98 per month and a 3.0‑mill increase would raise it about $2.94 per month on the median assessment.
The administration said the budget includes new positions and maintenance contracts that staff contend are necessary to meet growing district needs. Among the items cited as additions were a proposed director of special education and an HVAC preventative maintenance contract.
Board members sharply disagreed over priorities and transparency. Dr. Fike criticized the budget’s scale and said the district carries heavy debt and questioned what taxpayers would receive for higher spending, noting the district’s low statewide rating and the size of recent salary increases. “I do not understand why we are increasing these expenses when we are not providing the service,” Dr. Fike said.
Supporters of the tax increase argued the additional revenue would preserve planned curriculum investments and equipment purchases and avoid deeper cuts to building budgets and student services. Missus Mondock outlined options for 0, 1, 2, 2.5, 3 and 3.5 mill increases and the tradeoffs: for example, a 0‑mill option would require cutting building budgets, van purchases and reducing contingency funds.
After the 0‑mill motion failed on roll call, a trustee moved to adopt the board’s option 5 — the 3.0‑mill increase — and that motion passed by roll call, 5 in favor and 4 opposed. The board did not seek public referendum; the vote was taken at the May 19 meeting.
The vote was one of several on budget-related items that evening. The board will incorporate the adopted millage into the final adopted budget and follow up with required public postings and filings as provided by state law.
