Blue Mountain school board members narrowly approved a 5% property tax increase for the 2026-27 term Monday night, capping a fractured 5-4 vote that saw members openly challenge one another’s motives.
The vote to pass the 2026-27 budget was 5-4. Blue Mountain’s new millage rate is 8.8707, which means for every $1,000 in assessed value – based on the new, 2026 assessment values – a property will be taxed $8.8707.
That new millage rate was set after the district set its equalized millage, as required by the countywide reassessment, at 8.4483. The jump to 8.8707 mills represents a 4.99982% increase.
Use this calculator to determine your property taxes in Blue Mountain School District:
Blue Mountain School District
Property Tax Calculator
The $55.1 million spending plan is balanced not only by the tax increase but also by taking $623,360 from the district’s unassigned fund balance. After that draw down, Business Manager Amy Tomalavage says Blue Mountain has about $1.3 million remaining in that fund. She said the district is able to draw less from that unassigned fund balance that was initially proposed in the preliminary budget due to two staffing chages among Special Education.
Prior to the vote to adopt the 26-27 budget, board members heard from residents who expressed their concerns about the district’s spending, staffing, and the tax increase. Nearly three dozen people showed up for Monday’s meeting.
Board members Becky Miller, Megan Meisner, Krista Strause, and Rosanne Zelusky all voted against passing the budget with the tax hike Monday. Michelle Vesay, Janice Blair, John Campomizzi, Roy Heim, and Timothy Grube voted in favor of it.
Those who voted against the budget said they wanted to see cuts made from the district’s spending.
“I’m not naive to understand that every year, we as a board are faced with a difficult decision to raise taxes to the highest mill, the lowest mill, or have the district absorb the debt,” Zelusky said, adding that she won’t vote to raise taxes without the district making “major cuts.”
She said Blue Mountain is “heavy at the top” and needs to cut administrative staff. Zelusky also said the district could offer higher salaries to teachers if they paid less toward an employee’s health insurance.
Her vote and the rest of the minority did not sit well with Grube, who sharply criticized the four board members for voting against the budget.
Grube pushed back on what Zelusky said regarding the district spending too much on administrative costs. He said – also including “bloated” teacher salaries, which wasn’t mentioned by Zelusky but was discussed in public comments prior to the budget vote – it’s “just clearly not true.” Grube added that what Blue Mountain is spending on those costs is comparable to other districts in Schuylkill and northern Berks counties and must be done to compete to retain those teachers.
Grube said voting for a tax increase is “the hard thing” that no one wants to do. In a statement, he said Blue Mountain is not unlike property owners who face increasing costs elsewhere on things like healthcare and energy. He went so far as to include comments on how the federal government treats veterans and that costs of things like energy have gone up in the past five years and they affect schools, too.
“If you vote against the tax increase, you have no understanding of the financial implications of that or if they vote strictly for the popularity to continue to get election votes,” he said. “Anyone elected to a board is on the board to make difficult decisions to move the entity forward in a positive movement.
Meisner said her vote against the budget isn’t done for popularity and if she’s not re-elected, “I’d be OK with that.” She said she’s not opposed to raising taxes but objected to not having “options” brought before her ahead of the vote during the budget process.
Meisner said she believed it was incumbent upon the superintendet, assistant superintendent and financial advisor to provide those options on what could or can’t be cut.
“As a board member, I want options brought to me,” she said.
Miller also wondered about the lack of options brought to her through the budgeting process. Acknowleding that she did vote for the tax increase last year, she said that was done after hearing options on what cost-cutting steps could be taken.
“This year, we didn’t have those things,” she said.
Miller said that suggestions made on healthcare costs and administrative restructuring were “dismissed or not really fully explored.”
She added, “Those are hard things to talk about but we need to talk about those things.”
Heim, like Grube, also wasn’t pleased with board members who voted against next year’s budget with the tax increase. He said board members pushed for a higher bond – $12 million instead of the $8 million he says he suggested in a facilities committee meeting – to pay for the roof project because they wanted the project done sooner rather than later.
“You all sit and say you don’t want to spend money but you spend money all the time and then when you get in public, you don’t want to spend it. It is, quite frankly, it’s B.S.,” Heim said to the minority board members. “Stick to your words. Do what you said. I told you I’m not voting for this bond unless we’re going to raise taxes and everybody in the room said we’re going to do it.”
Heim accused those board members of failing to “stand your ground” once they were confronted by the public about a tax increase.
“I’m done listening to all this nonsense,” he said.
Subscribe to Coal Region Canary
Get email updates from Coal Region Canary by becoming a subscriber today. Just enter your email address below to get started!Support Coal Region Canary
Like our reporting and want to support truly local news in Schuylkill County? Your small donations help. For as little as $5, your contribution will allow us to cover more news that directly affects you. Consider donating today by hitting the big yellow button below ...