Marlboro Central presents $67 million budget proposal; board approves personnel changes

Superintendent Mr. Bridal reviewed the Marlboro Central School District's proposed $67,000,000 budget for 2024-25 and laid out decision points the board must resolve at its April 24 meeting, including the district's tax levy and possible use of reserves. The presentation highlighted a projected shift of former pilot payments into the property tax levy after the Danskammer Power Plant pilot agreement ends, and staff described options for bridging a resulting budget gap.

The superintendent said the district used a 0-based budgeting approach this year and emphasized an administrative priority to "protect core instructional programs," while keeping the budget sustainable. He told the board the district is using multiple-year expense comparisons with building administrators and the business office to reclassify and clarify line items in the proposed budget.

Why it matters: the end of a major pilot payment that has historically been recorded separately will move revenue onto property tax rolls and change the composition of the district's revenue pie. That shift affects how much of the district's revenue is labeled as coming from the tax levy and informs decisions the board must make about the levy cap, use of reserves and the final budget to present to voters in May.

Key budget points and staff explanations

- Pilot payments and Danskammer Power Plant: Staff said pilot revenues account for a small share of total district revenue this year but that 87% of pilot revenue the district has received historically came from the Danskammer Power Plant. With that pilot expected to end, the district projects those dollars will shift into the tax levy in 2025-26. The presenter cautioned that the plant is expected to contest its assessment and that the district is using a conservative estimate of what will appear on the tax rolls.

- Revenue and tax-levy share: Presentations and slides showed pilots represented roughly 2% of revenue in the current-year pie, falling to about 0.3% in 2025-26 once adjustments are included. Staff explained the increase in the tax-levy slice of the revenue pie (for example, a figure shown rising from about 60% to 64.2%) reflects where those pilot dollars would be recorded, not a 4.2 percentage-point tax-rate increase for individual taxpayers.

- Proposed budget total and levy cap: Staff presented a proposed budget figure of $67,000,000 and noted the district's tax levy cap calculation yielded 9.11%. The administration said its working proposal would use up to 9% in the levy calculation for board consideration; staff stressed any estimate of individual taxpayer impact uses current assessment data and that actual impacts will not be known until the August assessment rolls are released.

- Reserves and fund balance: Staff labeled the district's fund balance as a limited revenue source, indicating about $10,000,000 in reserves are available to help fill revenue gaps. The presentation said the board will decide on any appropriation from reserves when it sets the levy and final budget on April 24.

- Expense drivers: Staff identified salaries and employee benefits (including a 3.5% projected health-care increase) and contractual obligations as the largest budget drivers. They also explained some apparent increases in lines such as "conferences" reflect reallocation of expenses between lines so costs are easier to read, not necessarily real increases.

Board discussion and public transparency commitments

Board members praised staff transparency and the level of detail provided. Faith (board member) thanked the team, saying the materials and the planned website posting "will be a home run because everyone can just go to the website, and they will see all of the hard work that all of you have done collectively." The superintendent and business staff invited public questions and provided a district email (budget@marlboroughschools.org) and a budget webpage where slides and materials will be posted.

Staff cautioned that several variables remain uncertain, including the state budget (staff said as of the presentation the state had not adopted a budget) and the outcome of the plant's assessment challenge. Staff also noted ongoing collective-bargaining negotiations that could affect final expense projections.

Votes at a glance

- Walk-in personnel resolution (approved): The board approved a walk-in resolution that (1) eliminated four part-time teaching-assistant positions (unfilled), (2) created or increased two full-time teaching-assistant positions, and (3) appointed Lauren Roberts and Kaley Muggio as teaching assistants (step 1). Motion by Faith (board member); second by James Kuha (board member). Vote: Faith ' yes; James Kuha ' yes; James Mullen ' yes; Joanne ' yes; Chair ' yes. Outcome: approved.

- Consent agenda (approved): The board approved the consent agenda, which included personnel recommendations, board minutes, claims audit, and CSE/CPSE reports. Motion by James Mullen; second by Joanne. Vote recorded as unanimous in favor.

Other business and next steps

Staff reminded the public of upcoming deadlines: candidate petitions for board seats are due April 21 at 5 p.m.; the board is expected to consider adoption of the budget and levy on April 24; and the district will post budget materials and the presentation on the district's budget webpage. Staff also noted the district will present BOCES budget materials and administrative-member votes at an upcoming meeting.

The board recessed into executive session for a personnel matter; staff said there would be no actions following that session.

Ending: The administration asked the public to use the dedicated budget email and website for questions and to review posted slides and materials ahead of the April 24 board decision and the May budget vote.