District budget plan of about $378.7 million presented; board votes to require staffing-revision proposals and postpones final adoption

Newburgh City School District officials presented a proposed $378,695,404 general fund budget for fiscal year 2025–26 and told the Board of Education the plan balances projected revenues and expenditures while relying on a portion of fund balance and restricted reserves.

The board received the presentation from external budget consultants and district finance staff, then voted to add a resolution directing the administrative cabinet to prepare specific staffing changes to the proposed budget and later voted to postpone adoption of the budget so the revised staffing material can be returned for board review.

Consultant Dimitri Vasquez, who led the engagement for the district's budget review, told the board the proposed budget increases roughly $19.7 million (about 5.5%) from the prior year to a total near $378.7 million and that the budget materials are detailed line-by-line. He said state aid and real property taxes are the two largest revenue sources and that state sources account for roughly two‑thirds of projected revenue while property taxes account for about 28–30 percent.

“The proposed state aid revenue is about $245,000,000…there is an increase of $20,200,000 or 9% due to increased mandated set aside for the district's Contract for Excellence and increases in foundation and excess-cost aid,” Vasquez said during the presentation.

Assistant Superintendent for Finance Kimberly Roaring and Deputy Superintendent Marcy Peterson described key drivers on the revenue and expenditure sides: salary and benefits account for the largest shares of spending (salaries approximated at $168.3 million, about 44%; benefits about $112.7 million, about 30%), with increases driven by contractual salary steps, newly requested positions and rising benefit costs. The district projects higher excess‑cost aid for special education in 2025–26 based on recent actual receipts that have exceeded state governor aid-run estimates.

Peterson said the proposed budget includes a flat tax levy (no increase) and anticipates using approximately $7.87 million of appropriated fund balance while reducing reliance on certain reserves compared with the current year. She also warned of federal and state revenue uncertainties—particularly future federal grant levels (Title and IDEA) and potential changes to school lunch reimbursement or community eligibility—that could affect next year’s budget.

The presentation also listed proposed non‑personnel additions (security backpack scanners at secondary campuses, playground replacements, training and program costs) and many personnel requests from principals and departments, including additions for elementary bilingual staff, intervention positions, special‑education staff and a help‑desk coordinator in technology.

Public comment at the meeting focused heavily on concerns about a simultaneous administrative restructuring and notices sent to a number of district administrators; multiple speakers asked the board to explain the rationale, to make any reorganization plans public, and to consider the educational impact of removing experienced school leaders. Parent and staff speakers described anxiety about sudden personnel directives and the risk of litigation; the Newburgh Supervisors and Administrators Association told the board it had received threatened termination notices and warned that members were not afforded union representation at meetings, a claim the union said could prompt legal action.

On motions and timing, the board first approved an addition to the agenda that directed the administrative cabinet “to prepare the following staffing changes to the proposed budget for board review and action,” specifying that several proposed new executive‑level positions be removed from the draft (executive directors for exceptional learners and for curriculum & instruction) and that a help‑desk coordinator FTE be added; the roll call on that addition recorded a majority vote in favor. Later the board voted to postpone action on the general fund budget adoption to allow the administration to return with the staffing revisions requested by the board; the motion to postpone passed on roll call. The board scheduled a special meeting to consider the revised materials ahead of the legally required adoption timeline.

Action items recorded in the meeting minutes include the addition-to-agenda resolution directing staffing revisions (approved), a motion to postpone adoption of the 2025–26 general fund budget (approved) and a motion to convene executive session for legal advice and personnel discussion (approved).

Votes at a glance

- Addition to the agenda directing administrators to prepare staffing changes (identified in the meeting as 4.1.1): approved by roll call (motion/second not recorded by name in the transcript). The resolution directed the cabinet to remove proposed executive‑level postings (three executive directors for exceptional learners, three executive directors for curriculum & instruction and one assistant superintendent for CNI) from the advertised staff plan and to add a help‑desk coordinator FTE; it also instructed the cabinet to retain (not reduce) a set of school‑level positions listed in the packet. (See transcript entries where the resolution text was read aloud and the roll call for the add-to-agenda vote.)

- Motion to postpone adoption of the general fund budget (item 4.2): approved by roll call; board members said the postponement was to permit the administration to return with the staffing adjustments requested by the board before final adoption.

- Executive session for legal advice and personnel matters: called and approved by roll call earlier in the meeting.

- Several routine consent and departmental items (personnel, finance, technology, curriculum, special education) were approved on consent votes during the meeting; the library budget proposition (item 4.4) was also approved by roll call earlier in the meeting.

What the board asked for and next steps

Board members asked administration to produce a revised budget packet reflecting: (a) retention of specified director‑level positions through the adoption process, (b) removal of certain proposed executive director and assistant superintendent positions from the advertised additions, and (c) an added help‑desk coordinator position in technology. Trustees asked for a clear cost estimate showing the fiscal effect of any add‑backs or deletions so the board can choose whether additional positions must be funded by raising the appropriation or reallocating within the proposed total. The administration agreed to return with revised documentation in time for a special meeting the board set for Thursday to consider final action before the district's budget deadline.

The board and administration stressed that the numbers presented are based on current state and federal guidance and actual district experience; they said some figures—particularly state aid runs and federal grant awards—remain subject to change and will be refined once the state budget is finalized.

Ending

The board paused the formal budget vote to allow the requested staffing clarifications and cost calculations to be developed and posted. The district will post the revised materials and hold a special meeting to consider final adoption before the legally required filing date.