Victor CSD projects $2.1 million revenue gain but officials warn tax cap and BOCES aid uncertainty could widen budget gap

Victor Central School District officials told the board Feb. 26 that preliminary state aid estimates show modest growth but that uncertainty over BOCES aid and limits of New York’s tax-cap formula leave a likely gap between projected revenue and anticipated expenses for the 2025–26 school year.

"Overall, our state aid is up 2.41% from prior year, for $949,000 right now," Christine Griffin, the district’s new assistant superintendent for business, said during the budget workshop, calling the figure an estimate based on the governor’s executive budget as of Feb. 26, 2025.

The increase in state support matters because Victor relies heavily on local taxes and state aid: about 60–61% of revenue is expected to come from local property taxes, Griffin said, with roughly 38% coming from the state. Griffin said foundation aid in the governor’s proposal rose 4.29 ("Foundation Aid is only up 4.29%"), and she cited an overall governor’s foundation-aid figure of $26,587,119 in the proposal, while noting the district will not know final state aid until the Legislature completes its run (the district expects final numbers around April 1).

Board discussion focused on three main budget uncertainties: the final foundation-aid run from the Legislature, the district’s BOCES aid estimate, and the constraints of the state tax-cap formula.

Griffin said the district’s BOCES aid estimate currently looks lower than in prior years but that full-year expense reports remain incomplete, which complicates aid projections. She noted BOCES aid is expense-based and said that historically the district has received roughly $3.2 million in BOCES aid, adding, "I expect that number is going to come up." The district is awaiting access to the BOCES online procurement/process system (the district referenced Finger Lakes BOCES services) to refine those figures.

On the tax cap, Griffin presented a preliminary calculation showing a potential tax-levy increase cap of 3.04%, equating to $1,785,957 in additional levy, but she and board members emphasized how the 2% CPI cap element limits local flexibility. Griffin illustrated the disconnect between inflation and the cap, saying that if CPI were used the capped element would have been 2.95% — and that difference represents about $575,000 the district cannot levy because the formula caps that component at 2%.

Tim (identified in the meeting as a staff member) summarized the district’s budget picture: "We have still some uncertainty with foundation aid... and we still have to really refine our expenses. The challenge right now... is our revenue is going to be looking like somewhere between [a] 2–3% increase and our expenses... are probably close to 5 to 5.5%. So there's going to be a gap between the expenses and the revenue." He added, "We are definitely in a challenging situation."

The administration reported that, on the revenue side, the district projects an overall increase of about $2.1 million (roughly 2.12%) from last year’s budget to the projected 2025–26 budget. The presentation compared actuals and budgeted numbers and flagged that the governor’s proposal does not include building-aid for the district’s new capital project; any building-aid for that project would not appear until the 2026–27 school year, the administration said.

Board member Mrs. Mitchell (participating remotely) asked for clarifications of CPI and PILOTs after the presentation. Griffin defined CPI as the Consumer Price Index — the measure of year-over-year expense increases — and PILOTs as payments in lieu of taxes, noting PILOTs are tax agreements that affect assessed values used in the tax-cap calculation.

Next steps the board and administration identified include a personnel-side budget presentation scheduled for March 12, continued efforts to refine BOCES expense and aid estimates once online access is available, meetings with state legislators to press for higher foundation aid during the legislative run, and review of current-year budget performance to estimate potential fund balance and contingency available to bridge any gap.

Griffin and district leaders asked the board to weigh possible use of contingency savings (historically the district has preserved about 3–5% in contingency annually) while also emphasizing the need to protect reserves and avoid a multiyear structural deficit.

"We want to take that whatever money is that 3 to 5% that we save at the end of 24–25, and we wanna be able to refurbish our reserves," Tim said, explaining the trade-offs involved if reserves are tapped to cover a larger-than-expected gap.

The board did not take any formal votes at the workshop; staff were directed to return with more detailed expense and personnel projections and with refined BOCES aid estimates.

Ending: The board will reconvene for a personnel-focused presentation on March 12 and for subsequent budget workshops as the Legislature completes its state-aid run; staff said they will update numbers after receiving the final state aid run and detailed BOCES expense reports.