Webster CSD previews $104 million preliminary budget, flags rising health, pension costs and uncertain state aid

Webster Central School District on March 4 presented a $104,000,000 preliminary budget for 2025–26 and told board members that state aid calculations and rising benefits and insurance costs make next year’s budget especially uncertain.

At a budget workshop, Mr. Freeman, a district staff member and the meeting’s presenter, led a data-driven review of Foundation Aid, personnel and operating lines, and a proposed change to how the district uses facilities money to maximize state building aid. “Hold harmless means we’re now overfunded. The governor’s minimum increase is more than what the formula would give us,” Mr. Freeman said, explaining why the district’s foundation aid estimate rose despite longer-term formula shortfalls.

The discussion matters because the district must adopt its budget before New York State finishes negotiations on the governor’s executive budget. The presenter warned that several moving parts — the consumer price index used in the formula, recent changes proposed by the Rockefeller panel, and late adjustments in Albany — could affect Webster’s final aid. District staff also called out double-digit projected increases in health-care costs, rising pension rates and higher insurance premiums as the largest near-term budget pressures.

Most important details - Preliminary total: $104,000,000 for fiscal year 2025–26 (presented as the district’s first draft at this workshop). - Foundation Aid: staff walked the board through enrollment, “total wealth pupil units,” assessed value and adjusted gross income inputs to the Foundation Aid formula and said Webster falls into a “hold harmless” group because the governor’s proposed minimum increase exceeds the formula result. - Capital strategy: staff proposed transferring $500,000 from repair/contractual lines to capital (debt service) and packaging smaller building projects as a capital project to generate an estimated $350,000 in additional building aid over time. - Benefits and insurance: staff reported a 12.5% increase in student liability/accident insurance, a projected 14.4% increase for one active employee health plan (RASHP 2) and warned that Medicare/retiree plan changes stemming from the federal Inflation Reduction Act shifted costs from manufacturers and the federal government onto plan sponsors. - Pensions: the district’s TRS (teacher retirement) contribution was described as roughly $8.5 million (district share) and ERS (employee retirement) rates were noted to be increasing — staff cited projections of ERS moving toward the mid-teens percentage range, increasing the district’s employer bill.

What staff told the board Mr. Freeman and other presenters broke the Foundation Aid explanation into enrollment (including weighted secondary pupil units), wealth factors (assessed value and adjusted gross income) and combined wealth ratio. They showed how past spikes in secondary enrollment and policy changes (for example, the removal of religious exemptions for school immunizations) affected the district’s weighted pupil counts and the formula result.

To limit operating-year pressure and increase long-term aid, staff proposed reducing the district’s repair/contractual and supplies lines and placing roughly $500,000 into a capital project pool. “Take that half a million dollars, transfer it to the capital line under debt service … These mini capital projects will drive an extra $350,000 in building aid,” Mr. Freeman said. Staff described examples such as replacing gymnasium lighting and electrical panels at Schrader and other grouped, aidable projects that would be done together rather than piecemeal across buildings.

On benefits, the presenter detailed both retiree and active employee plan changes. He described the effect of the Inflation Reduction Act on Medicare Part D benefit design and premiums: “The donut hole doesn’t exist anymore. That has a huge cost. By removing that donut hole it shifted the cost to the plans which unfortunately is us,” Mr. Freeman said, outlining why retiree-plan premiums and sponsor costs are expected to rise. Staff also pointed to higher claims, more expensive prescription and specialty drugs, and broader post‑COVID cost pressures as drivers of medical plan increases.

Other operational points - Central services: BOCES administrative shares and software/licensing (finance and HR systems) remain significant cost drivers; auditors and other required services have fewer bidders, raising contract prices. - Buildings & grounds: the district reports vacancies in custodial and grounds positions and higher overtime costs related to winter events and athletics; staffing and minimum‑wage pressures factor into salary projections. - Transportation: the district described a continuing driver shortage; staff are pricing in additional hires while acknowledging recruitment challenges and some administrative staff seeking CDL licenses to provide backup. - Debt service: the presentation included existing capital borrowings and noted transfers (including the proposed $600,000 transfer into capital: $100,000 capital outlay plus the new $500,000 project) that feed building aid eligibility over time.

What the board directed or decided This session was a first workshop and no binding budget decisions were recorded. Two procedural motions were taken: the workshop was called to order and later adjourned by motion, both approved without roll-call tallies recorded.

Outlook and next steps Staff emphasized the fluidity of Albany negotiations and the likelihood of further changes through the next 30–60 days. Key upcoming dates noted in the presentation: Budget adoption on April 22, budget hearing May 13 and the district’s May vote. Staff said they will continue monitoring House and Senate budget proposals and the governor’s final actions and will return with updated aid projections and recommended adjustments at subsequent budget workshops.

Ending Board members thanked staff for the detail and the district scheduled two follow-up budget workshops (March 18 and April 8) to continue reviewing line items and respond to evolving state budget outcomes.