Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the District Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Binghamton school leaders present draft 2025–26 budget; propose up to 3.26% tax‑levy limit increase

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

Superintendent and central business staff presented the district’s draft 2025–26 three-part budget, outlining a proposed tax-levy limit increase of about 3.26%, $1.5 million more than prior year, use of reserves and $4.3 million in reductions.

Superintendent Dr. Thompson and central business office staff presented the Binghamton City School District’s draft 2025–26 three‑part budget to the Board of Education on March 18 and asked the board to support moving forward with a levy calculation that could capture the district’s maximum allowable levy.

The presentation, led by district finance staff with Angela Rogers in attendance, showed projected revenue increases in several lines: a projected 3.92% increase in state aid overall (foundation aid cited at a 3.18% budget‑to‑budget increase), a 5.55% increase in other revenues and a proposed tax‑levy limit increase of about $1.5 million, or 3.26% compared with last year’s levy of approximately $46.6 million.

Staff explained components feeding the levy calculation: a 2% allowable growth factor, a tax‑base growth factor from new brick‑and‑mortar property, changes in payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) returning to the tax roll, and capital‑related levy adjustments. The staff presentation noted that without changes in PILOTs, the levy increase would be closer to 2–2.5%.

To balance the draft budget, the district reported it reduced building and program budgets by 10% in some areas, cut contract services where possible, shifted restorative-practice services to BOCES (to generate aid/reimbursement), moved three buildings-and-grounds positions into the cafeteria fund, and planned reductions through attrition rather than immediate layoffs. Total reductions identified in the process were approximately $4.3 million; personnel costs remain the largest single driver of expenditures.

Staff described use of appropriated reserves and an appropriated fund balance set aside for one‑time vehicle purchases (vans) in the prior year; the presentation emphasized the district’s intent to limit reliance on reserves and to preserve reserves for contingencies.

Presenters also discussed uncertainty at the state and federal level. Staff noted the district expects at least a 2% increase in foundation aid under the governor’s executive proposal and said the legislature’s one‑house proposals range higher, which could reduce the district’s need to rely on reserves. Staff cautioned that the state budget might not be on time and the district may need to finalize the spending plan before the state’s final figures are released.

Key next steps given to the board included finalizing BOCES service estimates, completing the formal budget presentation in April, holding a public budget hearing on May 6 and placing the budget and board election before voters on May 20, 2025.

Board members asked several clarifying questions about the tax‑levy calculation, PILOTs, and whether reductions or shifts (for example, restoring some services through BOCES hires) would affect classroom supports. District staff said some supports will be provided through BOCES contracts that allow the district to retain expertise while generating aid back to the district.

The presentation was informational; no final budget vote occurred at the March 18 meeting.