Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ossining board adopts superintendent’s proposed 2025–26 budget with 1.67% tax-levy increase; earmarks contingency for possible grant cuts
Summary
The board approved the superintendent's proposed 2025–26 budget, including a 1.67% tax-levy increase (the levy cap), use of projected unappropriated fund balance and a $5.4 million contingency set aside to cover potential midyear cuts to federal grants, officials said.
The Board of Education adopted the superintendent’s proposed 2025–26 budget at its April 22 regular meeting and approved related consent items, district staff said during a work-session presentation and the consent-vote block.
District staff member Alita presented the proposed budget details and said the proposal includes a tax-levy increase of 1.67 percent, which she described as the district’s levy-limit cap. Alita said the district plans to use projected unappropriated fund balance and is earmarking $5,400,000 as a contingency to protect staffing in the event of midyear cuts to federal and state grants.
Alita told the board the district is not using reserves this year, citing prior large withdrawals for TRS and ERS, and described state budget uncertainty because the state Legislature had not finalized the state budget by its usual April 1 timetable. She said state aid is a large revenue source for the district and that final state aid runs could change projections; she identified building aid and foundation aid as the largest areas of uncertainty.
On capital and facilities, Alita listed projects included in the 2025–26 plan: a new track at AMD, Brookside cafeteria and kitchen renovation, district-wide security camera upgrades, water-main replacement at Claremont, high-school gym windows, gym floor work and bleachers, masonry, concrete and sidewalk repairs across sites, and targeted HVAC/RTU replacements. She said air-conditioning units are budgeted in the equipment line to add cooling where none exists.
Alita and board members discussed the district’s projected fund balance figures during the meeting. Alita described a projected unappropriated fund balance (figure given in the presentation) and explained that the district’s plan reserves $5.4 million to cover potential midyear grant reductions; she said that the amount being dedicated to planned projects would not include the contingency set aside.
Alita provided a timeline in the presentation and said budget documents would be available “on the 20 ninth” (phraseology used in the meeting). She also referenced upcoming procedural dates, saying the budget hearing and vote dates would follow in the district timetable and later cited a budget hearing date and a May 20 budget vote during the same presentation; district staff said they would provide finalized calendar details in posted documents.
Board members moved the consent block containing agenda items 4.1 through 4.8, which included the resolution to adopt the superintendent’s proposed 2025–26 budget; the board approved the consent block by voice vote.
Several board members praised the inclusion of a comprehensive capital schedule in the budget and thanked the business office and facilities staff. Board members also asked follow-up questions about fund-balance calculations, cafeteria fund accounting for possible pilot programs (for example a kiosk or payment app), and the district’s contingency planning if state aid shifts.
Action: The board adopted the superintendent’s proposed 2025–26 budget (resolution 4.1) and approved associated consent items (4.1–4.8) by voice vote; Alita said contingency planning includes setting aside $5.4 million of projected fund balance to protect positions if grant funding is reduced midyear.
