Pittsford board reviews 2025–26 budget, previews May 20 vote on buses, technology and $100,000 capital outlay

PITTSFORD, N.Y. — District business officials presented the proposed 2025–26 budget at the Pittsford Central School District Board of Education meeting on May 13 and outlined three propositions that will appear on the May 20 ballot: authorization to purchase buses, a technology reserve for one‑to‑one student devices and a $100,000 capital outlay project targeted to a single school.

The budget presentation summarized the district’s three‑part budget (program, administrative and capital), revenue projections and the district’s use of reserves to close a budget gap. Terry Hasler, the district’s financial officer, told the board the district expects to stay within the state tax‑cap formula and reported state aid increases in the executive and legislative budget runs.

Why it matters: The proposed budget determines local property tax levies, school programs and capital spending for the coming year. The board also discussed the district’s planned use of reserves, limits on levy increases under the state tax‑cap law and a contingency budget scenario if voters reject the budget on May 20.

Business office overview and revenue Most district spending remains in the program category, which funds instruction and student‑facing services. Hasler said health insurance costs produced the largest undistributed increase and noted the district shifted roughly $200,000 from contractual services to increased BOCES services in technology to maximize future BOCES aid. He also said local interest earnings have risen after the district engaged an external financial services firm to manage cash and reduce fees.

State aid and tax cap Hasler and board presenters described the district’s state aid outlook, saying the final state budget guarantees a minimum 2% increase in foundation aid for all districts and that the district’s executive/legislative runs showed only modest changes from the numbers used in the presentation. Hasler summarized the tax‑cap calculation used in New York and noted the district’s tax‑cap limit calculation for this proposal was about 2.34% while saying a simple rollover budget would require roughly a 4% levy increase.

Contingent budget and reserves Board members reviewed the rules for a contingent budget. Hasler said a contingent budget would require a 0% levy increase and “would result in about a reduction of $2,700,000 off the proposed budget as of right now.” The presentation listed $600,000 in planned reserve use and said the district would use the TRS reserve in 2026 for pension‑related costs. Hasler and other staff emphasized that the district has used reserves to smooth the budget without cutting student programs so far this year, but said the long‑range plan requires more reductions later unless revenue increases continue.

Propositions and capital authorizations The board discussed three ballot propositions for the May 20 vote: (1) authorization to purchase 14 buses and reauthorize a transportation reserve; (2) an instructional technology reserve to support one‑to‑one devices; and (3) a $100,000 capital outlay project limited to a single school (the district described the project as HVAC work at a Thornhill Road Elementary building). Hasler explained that bus purchases generate transportation aid that can be recycled into the reserve to fund future purchases and reduce maintenance costs on older buses.

Board approvals on consent agenda During the business portion of the meeting the board approved multiple consent items and resolutions related to the capital project and services: commissioning services for HVAC and water‑heating systems, stormwater pollution prevention planning and steel inspections, asbestos air monitoring during construction, a SEQRA/SECRA resolution for the $100,000 facilities project and the capital project resolution authorizing the specific planned work. The board also approved budget transfers (including transfers to cover higher health insurance costs), digitization of business‑office records and continuation of an investment/financial services contract.

What was not decided The meeting did not include a final voter approval of the budget; that decision is set for the public vote on May 20 at Calkins Road Middle School. Several items presented for board approval were passed by motion that evening (contract authorizations, transfers and capital‑project resolutions), but the overall annual budget requires voter approval.

Context and next steps Hasler and district leaders said they will continue to monitor state aid runs and refine projections; they reiterated the May 20 voting logistics (absentee ballots and early voting information) and urged residents to note the polling location. The board’s budget vote and the three propositions will determine whether the district can proceed with the bus and technology purchases and the targeted capital work described by staff.

Ending — practical details The district’s budget notice and Proposition language will be mailed before the vote; board members said the voting location on May 20 is Calkins Road Middle School. The budget remains subject to voter approval and, if rejected, the district would be required by state rules to adopt a contingent budget with a 0% levy increase and the attendant program and service reductions.