A majority of the Pine-Richland School Board does not want to consider increasing the district’s property tax rate, despite administrators’ recommendation that they should.
Superintendent Brian Miller said the administration is recommending a 2.1% property tax increase.
Administrators also have recommended cutting 9.5 positions, including 3.5 teachers, through attrition, as well as increasing student activity and parking fees and fees charged for use of district facilities. The staff cuts would save $706,000, while the fees would raise $125,000.
The district has reduced the deficit in the 2025-26 budget from $3 million to $1.3 million, Miller said. With the tax increase, the district still would start the 2026-27 school year with a $3 million to $4 million deficit, but it could be closer to $5 million to $6 million without it, he said.
“Based on what we see now, we know 25-26 is almost nothing compared to the challenge that we’re going to see as we head into 26-27 and beyond. These are difficult things, but we’re making these recommendations with the idea that we’re trying to preserve the educational excellence of the district and also address the challenges that are in front of us,” Miller said. “Without the millage recommendation, we would have to pull from our reserves. Pulling from the reserves is using one-time money on a recurring cost — not a good decision in the long-term.”
The district’s tax rate is now 19.5867 mills. A 2.1% increase would take it to 19.998 mills.
For a home at Pine’s $335,500 median assessed value, that would increase the annual school property tax bill by about $138, from $6,571 to $6,709. A home at Richland’s median assessed value of $168,600 would see its bill increase by about $70, from $3,302 to $3,372.
During a discussion Monday, five board members — Philip Morrissette, Lisa Hillman, Christina Brussalis, Leslie Miller and Michael Wiethorn — said they are against a property tax increase.
Pine-Richland’s revenue has exceeded its expenses for the past seven to eight years, and the district has not increased its property tax rate since the 2017-18 school year. The district has been paying for capital expenses from its operations budget.
“I have a hard time the first time we hit a bump in the road where our operational expenses exceed our revenue that we’re immediately turning to the community and asking for a tax increase,” Wiethorn said. “Millage rates never go down. They only go up.”
Miller said he would not call what the district is facing a bump in the road.
“I would call it a sinkhole that you don’t know how big it’s going to get,” he said.
The tax increase in 2017-18 was for capital expenses and was not needed for the district to operate, Miller said.
“The number of positive things that emerged out of that difficult decision back then are significant,” he said. “What we’re facing now is not the same thing. A small increase now gives us a fighting chance.”
But seeing the deficit on the district’s $110 million budget lowered from 2.5% to 1.2%, Morrissette said that gap can be closed without increasing taxes.
“That is not a hard nut to close. We ought to find a way to do this,” he said.
Board member Marc Casciani said he has been vocal and adamant against property tax increases during his tenure. He said he voted for the increase in 2017 because it made sense and there was logic behind it, to pay for building improvements without taking out more debt. But the district is facing a very different situation now, he said.
“I’m not concerned about this next budget. We could easily absorb the $1.3 million without much damage. I am looking at next year and the following years,” he said. “If we are going to narrow that future deficit next year by cutting, we’re talking about genuinely affecting the program that we offer the kids. If you’re willing to let that happen, that’s fine. But that is the reality and it’s going to be really, really hard. I wouldn’t want to affect the kids, and it will.”
A tax increase is needed this year or the district will have to take drastic actions, including cutting services and programs, next year, board member Amy Terchick said.
“We need to provide quality programs for our kids. That’s what our community expects,” she said. “I don’t want a tax increase. I’m an empty nester, so are some other people on the board. I also know the value of my home is what it is because I live here and because we have a quality school.”
The continued financial foundation of the district is the board’s most important duty, board member Joseph Cassidy said. A 2.1% increase would raise $1.36 million for the district.
Featured Local Businesses
“If we continue kicking the can down the road, our fund balance will be gone by 2027-2028. This is the hand we’ve been dealt,” he said. “I don’t want to pay taxes as much as anybody else in here, but we do need to make a decision on this that we can move forward as a board, as a district, so that we are financially strong and stable.”
Despite the majority of the board saying they want a budget with no tax increase, Miller said he will have two budgets, one with no increase and one with a 2.1% increase, for the board to review during a finance meeting at 6 p.m. May 12. That will be held ahead of the meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. during which the board is expected to vote on advertising a proposed final budget.
A final vote on the budget would be taken in June.