Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Williamsville proposes $242.7 million budget, stays under state tax cap
Summary
District staff presented a $242,719,867 proposed budget for 2025–26, a 4.29% increase that remains below the state's property tax cap; public comment raised questions about a 37% jump in "special items," higher legal and transportation costs and reliance on BOCES services.
At a Williamsville Central School District board meeting, Mr. Kelly, assistant superintendent of finance and management services, presented a proposed $242,719,867 budget for the 2025–26 school year that represents a 4.29% increase from the current year and remains below the district's state property tax levy limit.
The proposal would raise the district's property tax levy by 2.99% to $148,413,562, which Mr. Kelly said kept the district "below its property tax levy limit by 431,651." The budget includes $524,852 in program enhancements — mostly added special education classrooms and contracted itinerant special education services — and relies on an increased use of fund balance of $3,750,000.
The hearing drew questions from residents about steep increases in several budget lines. "Special items, they went up 37%," James Hanley of 51 Sable Run told the board, and he asked for an explanation of that change along with a 17% rise in human resources and legal services and an 8% increase in pupil transportation.
Mr. Kelly responded that the "special items" category groups costs not allocated elsewhere, including estimated workers' compensation expenses, insurance premiums, BOCES administrative costs, tax assessment payments and refunds for successful property assessment challenges. He said those components — especially higher insurance and workers' compensation costs and larger BOCES charges tied to expanded services — accounted for much of the increase. He also noted that "property and casualty insurance" rose about 10% in the current year.
On legal and HR costs, Mr. Kelly said the district contracts outside counsel and that outside law firms have raised rates; the district also has incurred more legal work in recent years. He said transportation costs reflect contract rate increases and fuel cost uncertainty and that staffing shortages and driver availability are contributing pressures.
The budget presentation included additional details: the current year's budget totaled $232,740,574; planned cost reductions of more than $2,900,000 were identified during development; state aid is projected at $69,916,534 (an increase of about $6.1 million); sales tax revenue was budgeted down by roughly $674,000; and, by comparison, without built-in reductions the draft budget would have totaled $245,671,123. Estimated homeowner impacts listed in the materials show an Amherst house assessed at $250,000 with an estimated school tax bill of $3,005 and one at $500,000 with an estimated bill of $6,010.
Board members pressed staff on risk and assumptions. Stuart Buellen asked how a not-yet-final state budget would affect the district; Mr. Kelly said the district builds its budget on state estimates and adjusts if the final state budget differs. Staff described a transportation efficiency study intended to identify underused stops and routes that could reduce future costs.
No formal budget vote occurred at the meeting; Mr. Kelly and district staff presented the proposed budget at the public hearing and took public comment. The district scheduled the budget vote and school board election for May 20, and the next regular board meeting was noted as May 27.
