Scotia-Glenville leaders outline $2.8 million budget gap and possible cuts including staff and programs

Superintendent Susan Swartz and business manager Drew Giacinto told the Scotia-Glenville Central School District Board of Education that the district faces a roughly $2.8 million budget gap for 2025–26 and outlined possible reductions that would lower the gap to about $912,000.

Swartz, the district superintendent, said the gap is largely the product of expense increases, relatively flat state aid and declines in PILOT and reserve revenues. "Not $2,800,000 and Mister Giacinto doesn't have a magic wand," she told the board, adding that about 78% of the district budget is tied to salaries and benefits.

Why it matters: the shortfall forces the district to consider personnel-driven savings and program changes because non‑personnel discretionary dollars are limited. Supt. Swartz and Giacinto said the largest drivers this year included an unexpected rise in out‑of‑district special-education placements and rising health and prescription drug costs in plans used by retirees and active employees.

The administration proposed a package of actions that would reduce the carry‑forward expenditure projection by about $1.9 million: use of natural attrition and retirements; not filling some positions while keeping them encumbered; targeted support-staff reductions; administrative restructuring; modest BOCES service adjustments; shifting some IT purchases to recently approved Smart Schools grant funds; and reduced use of a federal COVID-era learning‑leaps program whose funding has ended. Giacinto said those items would cut the projected levy increase from 11.79% to just under 6% in one scenario and reduce the tax‑rate impact correspondingly.

Giacinto, the district business manager, characterized the health‑insurance pressure as coming from prescription drug trends and the district's mix of plans: "I never said it was a 17% rate increase. I said that was the budget‑to‑budget." He explained the district participates in a Capital Area Schools Health Insurance Consortium and that some plans in the mix are experience‑rated and carry high drug costs because of retiree utilization.

Administrators also highlighted enrollment decline as a multi‑year state‑level challenge that has reduced per‑pupil revenue. The superintendent noted kindergarten projections were the smallest seen recently (roughly 138 students at the time of presentation) and said that elementary section counts could fall from 48 to as few as 42 next year without intervention.

Board members asked for further detail and asked the administration to return next week with additional analysis, including the financial impact of repurposing or mothballing a school. Giacinto said previous slides showed closing an elementary could yield roughly $2 million in direct savings, though he cautioned the full net savings would depend on matriculation, busing costs and other factors.

What was not decided: the board did not vote on any budget cuts at the meeting. Supt. Swartz and Giacinto framed the recommendations as preliminary and emphasized negotiated contracts and collective‑bargaining requirements limit unilateral changes to benefits or salaries. The administration committed to additional detail at a follow‑up budget work session.

Looking ahead: the administration asked the board for conceptual support on the proposed package and said it would pursue stakeholder conversations before final actions. The district will also proceed with other planned items — such as a voter proposition on bus‑garage retrofitting for electric buses — only if outside funding and rebates remain in place.