Rochester City Council and RCSD review 2025–26 budget as district plans contingencies for federal cuts

CAMBRIDGE, Rochester — Rochester City Council members held a budget-review session with Rochester City School District leaders on the proposed 2025–26 district budget, where board and school officials described a multi‑million‑dollar gap, steps taken to close it and contingency plans if federal funding is reduced.

Camille Simmons, president of the Rochester City School District Board of Education, opened the presentation by saying the proposed plan "reflects our administration's efforts to present a responsible and student focused financial plan" and noted the district is facing a large shortfall as it prepares for a superintendent transition.

The nut graf: District officials told council members the budget attempts to preserve classroom supports while closing a roughly $38 million to $39.38 million gap without drawing on reserves, but repeatedly cautioned that uncertainty in federal and state funding could force further reductions or consolidation if anticipated dollars do not arrive.

Dr. Demario Strickland, superintendent of the Rochester City School District, said the district has "taken deliberate steps to close [a projected] $39,380,000 gap without using the fund balance." He described reductions that include eliminating vacant positions, aligning staffing to enrollment and reallocating titles and object codes so budgets conform to New York State reporting.

District staff described significant coding and accounting work completed as part of an Oracle conversion and alignment with the New York State chart of accounts and ST-3 reporting. Acting Chief Financial Officer Derek Blair and budget staff said many positions and expenses were recoded (for example, school safety officers previously coded as instructional staff were moved to security object codes), which produced apparent year‑over‑year swings in line items such as security and central data processing.

Council members pressed for clearer narrative and transparency in the district budget book. Chair Gruber and others requested that the budget include plain-language explanations for large variances (for example, increases or decreases of 25 percent or $25,000) to comply with the city charter's transparency goals and to help parents and the public understand year‑to‑year changes.

District staff acknowledged the budget book's narrative is incomplete and said staff prioritized correcting chart‑of‑accounts alignment this year. The district said updates and more detailed narrative will be added in future versions and that an updated draft was posted on the RCSD website.

Council members asked about specific program and school‑level changes. District leaders described a planned reconfiguration affecting Andrew Langston Middle School, which will relocate from the Jefferson campus to the Douglas campus as the district reorganizes swing space for facility modernizations and to support Wilson High School and other projects.

On staffing and positions, the council heard that initial projections showed adding roughly 150 staff while enrollment fell by about 1,200 students; the district said the largest increases were in paraprofessionals to meet Individualized Education Program (IEP) needs and that further central‑office reductions and retirements reduced net new FTEs to 16 in a later draft.

Fund balance questions drew sustained attention. Council member Mike Patterson noted the draft showed a $16 million planned use of fund balance in an early submission but district leaders said subsequent revisions removed that planned drawdown and restored a projected $0 use of fund balance in the latest draft. The district reported an unrestricted fund balance figure of $285,000,000 on its financials posted online.

Officials also described the scale of federal funding at risk. Staff pointed to roughly $55,000,000 in federal grants and pass‑throughs (including multiple ESSA and Title funds listed in the budget book) that may be affected by federal changes. The district said it is building contingency plans that could include consolidating programs or school space and further central‑office reductions if those funds are lost, but that such steps would be taken to protect direct services to students where possible.

Council members asked about several programmatic items: the newly approved bus patrol (stop‑arm) program — the city council and school district are awaiting a signed contract submitted about four weeks earlier; investments in mental‑health staffing including an increase in psychological services and what those services will provide for students; food‑service menu updates and waste‑reduction efforts; and expansion of pre‑K seats in the event of cuts to external pre‑K providers.

On curriculum, district leaders described implementation of an evidence‑based early‑reading approach. Dr. Strickland and a district reading lead said the district trained K–2 teachers on the Amplify curriculum this school year and is continuing language essentials and coaching to align with the science of reading. "We started the implementation this year in September," the reading lead said, and training began at the end of the prior school year.

Members also raised refugee and newcomer education, including the Rochester International Academy (RIA). District leaders said RIA will remain in place for eligible students for the coming year but noted federal resettlement changes mean fewer newly arriving students are expected in the near term and that the district is exploring ways to integrate supports across schools so all buildings can provide similar services.

Several council members praised programs such as the Boys Academy and commended district leaders for the accounting realignment work even while urging clearer narrative for parents. The district said the state monitor and fiscal consultant were actively engaged throughout budget development and that board leadership and monitors reviewed the budget against state expectations and the governor's executive budget assumptions.

No formal vote or binding action was taken at the hearing; councilors provided feedback and asked for follow‑up materials, including (1) the revised budget book posted online, (2) a list of schools with active parent organizations, (3) updated contingency scenarios tied to potential federal funding losses, and (4) a copy of a letter referenced from the U.S. Department of Education (council requested the district's response to that correspondence).

Ending: District and council leaders said they will continue to coordinate while the school board prepares to vote on a final budget. President Simmons closed by asking council members to "keep the needs of our students at the center of your deliberations in the weeks ahead," and Dr. Strickland thanked council members for the opportunity to receive feedback ahead of the board's decision.