Ossining district outlines federal grant shortfalls and policy choices as budgets are finalized

The Ossining Board of Education received an update July 9 from Superintendent Mary Fox Alter and Assistant Superintendent for Business Alita McCoy on federal and state grant funding that the district had factored into the 2025–26 budget. The update identified confirmed reductions and outstanding funding decisions that together create a near‑term exposure for the district.

McCoy presented two tables: one showing confirmed grant awards and amounts as of the meeting date, and a second showing what had been assumed at budget time. She said confirmed federal grants already received include Title I, Title II and Title VI/619 amounts with small variances from budget assumptions, but that the district had received a notice this year that the five‑year school‑based mental health grant will end on Dec. 31, 2025 — which effectively covers only half of the 2025–26 fiscal year. That withdrawal creates a projected deficit of $631,000 tied to that program. McCoy said the district’s known federal grant deficit for 2025–26 at the time of the meeting was approximately $801,000; additional federal grant determinations for Title II, Title III (including the immigration allocation) and Title IV remained “to be determined” and could add about $409,000 in uncertainty.

“Obviously, we have a cushion to absorb that for this year, but we don’t know what’s going to happen with the federal government,” McCoy said. Superintendent Fox Alter noted that the district has taken steps to prepare: the budget included conservative estimates and the district had set aside funds that could serve as a cushion, and administrators had filed an appeal for the My Brother’s Keeper funding and been in contact with state and federal officials.

Board members asked clarifying questions about which awards were formally rescinded versus simply unannounced. McCoy said the mental health grant had been explicitly changed; other amounts were pending. She and Fox Alter said the district would not automatically assume ongoing program funding; instead, administrators said they would consider using one‑time reserves or capital reserves for transitional support while they weigh longer‑term budget options for 2026–27.

McCoy described the district’s near‑term fund balance and reserves: the district retains a fund balance above the recommended 4 percent, and the available cushion was described in the meeting as roughly $5 million above that 4 percent target, depending on final audit results. The district has been considering how much, if any, of the one‑time carryover should be placed into restricted reserves versus held as available fund balance to accommodate unpredictable grant outcomes.

Board members discussed the fiscal tradeoffs. Several trustees said they favored keeping a larger one‑time cushion to avoid mid‑year program cuts; others raised the importance of transparency with the public about the district’s contingency planning. The superintendent said audit timing and the state’s final apportionments would influence final budget actions, and she asked the board to consider policy choices — such as whether to use fund balance, capital reserves, or other one‑time sources — when the audit and grant determinations are final.

Administrators also pointed trustees to an upcoming public presentation on Title funding and federal grants scheduled for July 24, and said they would provide additional information to the board as new guidance and allocations were announced. “We are aware that we’re over 4 percent,” McCoy said, and described next steps: present final audited figures, decide whether to place one‑time funds into reserve accounts, and plan how to sustain or scale programs that had relied on grant funding if federal dollars are not restored.

The board did not take formal budget actions at the meeting; trustees asked for further financial modeling and options in time for fall budget planning and the district’s regular fiscal cycle.