Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fayetteville-Manlius presents $5.2 million budget increase, proposes 3.56% tax levy

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District business staff outlined a $5.2 million increase driven by salary, benefits and debt service; staff said program cuts aren’t planned and the board set April 21 for adoption, May 12 for the hearing and May 20 for the vote.

FAYETTEVILLE-MANLIUS — District staff on the Fayetteville-Manlius Central School District board’s budget presentation said the proposed 2025–26 budget would increase overall spending by about $5.2 million and recommended a tax levy increase of 3.56 percent, producing roughly $2.6 million in additional levy revenue.

The presentation said program spending would rise by about $2.9 million (approximately 3.5 percent) and that the program budget remains the largest component at about $86 million. Staff emphasized there are no planned cuts to programs or staffing.

The budget team framed the increase as the result of four main expenditure drivers: projected negotiated salary increases (about $2.4 million), higher health insurance and benefits (about $1.4 million), a $500,000 reduction in capital transfer, and a $1.9 million rise in debt service primarily tied to bond anticipation note financing for the high school capital project.

Officials walked board members through program-level changes, including a notable shift in special education services away from BOCES placements into in-district programs. BOCES tuition appropriations were shown falling from $2.475 million in the current year to about $1.589 million next year as several higher-need students return to Fayetteville-Manlius classrooms. The presenter said the change is the result of opening special classes and expanding in-district supports rather than service reductions.

The presentation also listed benefit and insurance details: the state employee retirement system (ERS) rate used in the budget was 15.23 percent (up from 14.1), TRS was modeled slightly lower (projected from 4.1 to 3.9), and the budget assumes a 7 percent increase in health insurance premiums (the presenter noted that 7 percent corresponds to roughly $19 million in the benefits line). Transportation spending was shown increasing by about $149,000 (roughly 2.57 percent) in a $6 million transportation budget; that rise reflects negotiated pay changes, additional bus attendant needs tied to returning students, and higher fuel/parts costs.

On revenues, staff projected state aid rising by about $830,000 (driven by increases in foundation aid, BOCES aid and transportation aid), and confirmed the tax levy would be set at the 3.56 percent cap. Using a 10 percent assessment increase scenario, staff displayed a projected tax rate impact of about $54 on a $100,000 home; they noted that equalization changes or assessment differences would change that figure.

To balance the budget, the administration proposed using assigned fund balance and reserves. The presentation explained that the district would appropriate approximately $1.3 million of assigned fund balance this year (a larger use than the prior year) and has about $17 million in reserves overall. Staff advised prudence and said they would monitor the governor’s upcoming budget for changes in aid.

Board members asked clarifying questions about federal funding exposure, the mechanics of the BOCES-to-district special education shift, and the budget’s sensitivity to future aid changes. A board member praised the business office for budgeting the capital project to remain within the tax levy limit and avoid a supermajority vote of the public.

The board was told next steps and timeline: board adoption of the budget on April 21, a public budget hearing on May 12, and the budget vote on May 20.

The presentation and subsequent discussion did not include a formal vote on the budget at this meeting; board members and staff said they would continue to monitor state and federal developments that could affect revenue assumptions.