Board reviews budget workshop: enrollment decline, rising special education share and a $1.2M pilot reshape tax-levy outlook

District staff presented a budget workshop that reviewed recent enrollment trends, revenue and expense history, reserve balances and the effect of an upcoming $1.2 million payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) expected to run for about 30 years.

The presentation said Ravenna-Coeymans-Selkirk High School enrollment fell from just over 630 students in 2010 to below 500 just before the pandemic and that the district has lost about 160 students overall since 2010. The staff member presenting said the decline is difficult to explain using local construction trends and county birth-rate data; possible factors mentioned included more rental properties in parts of the district and student moves to nonpublic schools.

Staff reported composition of district revenue: roughly 49% local taxation, about 36% state aid and roughly 11% other revenue (including PILOTs). The presenter said the district budgeted to use approximately $2.5 million from fund balance in the most recent budget to balance revenues and expenses.

On student need indicators, staff said the district's share of students identified as students with disabilities has risen to about 20%, higher than the state benchmark range discussed in the meeting (12% to 14%). The presenter warned the state could flag the district on its report card for a high special education proportion.

Staff reviewed fund balances and reserves: the employee retirement reserve was described as about $1.8 million, covering roughly two and a half years of the employer bill at current rates; teachers' retirement reserve is fully funded by law but would not cover a year of employer contribution; capital reserves were reported as roughly $1.1 million (older reserve) plus $3.0 million (newer reserve). The unassigned fund balance was described as just under 6% at the end of the last fiscal year, above the 4% guideline state law recommends. The presenter noted the district has been using an assigned $2.5 million of fund balance to balance the budget and said the finance committee will propose a reserve plan to reduce reliance on that amount.

On tax-levy calculations, staff reviewed the complex formula used to determine the district's tax-levy limit and noted that an incoming PILOT of about $1.2 million tied to a new gas/electric transmission project will be added to district revenues. The presenter said the PILOT will reduce the district's future tax-levy limit in the statutory calculation because prior-year PILOT receipts are accounted for in the levy-limit formula; staff estimated the PILOT will run for approximately 30 years and escalate modestly (an estimate cited a $60,000-per-year increase in later years). Because that PILOT increases revenue without increasing the prior-year tax levy, staff warned it could create a negative effect in the levy-limit computation for the year the PILOT is added, which could constrain future local levy increases unless the board pursues a voter override.

Using preliminary numbers, staff projected a tax-levy limit for the coming year at about 3.13% (approximately $886,000) but also showed a scenario in which the PILOT would make the next year's levy limit negative and recommended the board consider long-term effects when setting levy strategy. The presenter suggested one option would be a 0% local levy increase next year that would require a 60% voter approval (the presenter described it as a 6% vote in the transcript; the underlying requirement is a supermajority referendum threshold for overrides). The presenter emphasized that numbers were preliminary and would be updated when state final aid runs are available.

The presenter also noted a large potential change in state aid: the governor's executive budget proposed an increase in the district's foundation aid of about $1.2 million (an 8.86% increase from the prior year), a number the presenter said exceeded prior internal estimates and that could materially improve the near-term outlook if it persists through the legislative process.

Board members questioned reserve levels and long-term projections. One board member said the finance committee needs to "take a good hard look" at every department to confirm value for money; another noted that while the executive budget proposal looked generous, final state action could change funding. The presenter said a fuller five-year plan would be brought back in future sessions with more detailed recommendations.

No formal budget decisions were taken at the workshop; the presentation served as an informational update and a prompt for further planning and finance-committee work.