District trying to whittle budget down to 2.5% tax increase

0
Share

By Melanie Lekocevic

Capital Region Independent Media

GREENVILLE — It’s deep into budget season right now, and the board of education has instructed the school district to try to whittle down the preliminary budget to a 2.5% tax hike.

Under the requirements of the state tax cap, which was set by a complex formula, the Greenville district can go as high as a 3.17% tax increase, but board of education members agreed at the board’s Feb. 26 meeting that they didn’t want to go that high and instructed the district to reduce the proposed tax increase.

The preliminary spending plan, as it stood at press time, if kept at the tax cap, would still have a deficit.

“With what we know right now, if we were to go out at the maximum tax levy of 3.17%, it would result in a tax levy of $18,764,909 and there would be a deficit of $311,804,” Assistant Superintendent for Business Todd Hilgendorff told the board last Monday. “So, if we went with the maximum tax cap as everything stands right now, we would have to find $311,804 to cut out of that budget.”

Board of Education President Tracy Young said the tax cap was too high and wanted to see it come down for taxpayers. She also pointed to the fact that Greenville is one of the few school districts that did not lose state foundation aid this year — in part due to the economic status of the town’s residents.

“I am not comfortable going out at 3.17%,” Young said. “I think it is too high and especially given the fact that part of the reason the foundation aid increased is because we are a poor community… I absolutely say we have to be under 3%.”

Board member James Goode Jr. said he wanted to see the tax increase come down closer to last year’s figure.

“I think we should try to target the 2.5% again,” Goode said. “I think the target should be lower, like 2.5%, and then maybe shift upwards, depending on what we would lose.”

Board member Kelly Hubicki also wanted to see the tax rate come down, but wants to know specifically what the district would lose to make that happen.

“I don’t want to be at 3.17%,” Hubicki said. “I am not a numbers person, so I very much would appreciate seeing what it means to cut down to 2.5%. What does it look like? What will be cut? I need these things — not just the numbers.”

THE PRELIMINARY PLAN

District administrators presented the program portion of the budget to the board at its Feb. 26 meeting.

The months-long budget process began in January with the review of the rollover budget and continues with the setting of priorities and then trying to trim the budget to keep taxes under control.

“Our budget for this current year is $34,227, 771,” Hilgendorff said. “In the rollover budget that we presented in January, we were at $35,388,991, and in the preliminary budget that we are presenting tonight, we are at $36,175,044. That’s an increase of 2.2% from the rollover budget, and it’s a 5.7% increase from the current year’s budget to the proposed budget for next year.”

Hilgendorff said some of the numbers have not yet been finalized and adjustments are still coming in, so further changes are expected. It is an ongoing process, he added.

Among the changing numbers is the cost of health insurance.

“When we presented the rollover budget in January, I was using a 10% increase in prescription plans and a 10% increase in health insurance,” he said. “Between then and a couple of weeks ago, we got preliminary numbers from RCG [Health Insurance] Trust and the health insurance they are giving us is expected to rise 14% for next year.”

There will be no increase in the prescription plan for the coming school year.

The state requires that school districts present the preliminary budget in three components — program, administrative and capital — with the next two components presented at future board meetings.

Another cost hike for the district is the expenses related to providing special education services.

While overall enrollment of students is expected to remain steady, there is an anticipated jump in the number of special education students from 225 this year to an estimated 237 next year, said K-12 principal Melissa Macaluso.

The cost of providing those services, which can include BOCES programming and private placement for students the district is unable to provide necessary services for, is expected to increase from $1,523,057 in the 2023-24 school year to $2,015,342 for the 2024-25 academic year.

Another area that drew extended conversation during the meeting was transportation. There is a nationwide shortage of school bus drivers and Greenville is no exception. The district covers approximately 135 square miles and drivers travel around 1,700 miles a day, transporting 1,142 students, according to Transportation Supervisor Mary Judeikis.

“We have some bus driver shortages and they are going to increase,” Judeikis said. “We have an older population of employees and they are going to get ready to retire. Some have already reached out to me and expect to retire in the next year, and several more who expect to do so in the next three or four years.”

The Transportation Department is also grappling with purchasing electric school buses, which have been mandated by the state.

“We are developing a new bus replacement schedule, trying to figure out how we are going to base our next cycle around electrification,” Judeikis said. “We have to start thinking about it now… Our first purchase of electric [buses] is going to be during the 2027-28 school year and we will need to spec them out in 2026, and then in 2029-30, through 2035, we will start reducing our diesels and implement those EVs (electric vehicles), as long as the infrastructure can be put in in a timely fashion, which we are working on.”

By 2035-36, the district expects to have completed its transition to an all-electric school bus fleet, she added.

Young said the district urged the state to reconsider the plans over electric school buses during the annual Lobby Day in Albany last week, where organizations and groups meet with legislative leaders to outline their needs.

The electrification plan has drawn criticism statewide, particularly in rural districts where funding to make the needed changes is limited and long bus routes make them question the viability of electric-powered buses.

“During Lobby Day we were very vocal about the infrastructure and the lack thereof here in Greene County,” Young said. “The reality of what it means in rural communities. I think they heard our message but what they will do with it I am not sure. But as more and more people say the same message, hopefully that will show that it is not realistic. If I could wave a magic wand and we had all the money in the world, we still couldn’t do it because we don’t have the infrastructure.”

BUDGET SCHEDULE

The district was scheduled to present the capital and administrative components of the budget to the board of education this week, after press time, and is expected to adopt the tentative budget April 8.

The annual budget hearing is scheduled for May 7, and then voters will have the final say when they head to the polls May 21.

Related Posts