Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victor board hears community proposals to close budget gap; solar, fees and donor outreach discussed
Summary
Board members and a district advocacy group discussed ideas to reduce operating costs or generate new revenue amid a reported 2–4% structural gap, including solar panels, rooftop/carport solar for buses, permit fees, cell‑tower leases, EV charging stations, alumni/donor cultivation and increased sales‑tax sharing.
Board members and community volunteers who attended an advocacy and community engagement meeting reviewed potential options to reduce expenses or identify new revenues after district staff outlined a projected 2–4% gap between expenses and revenues.
Board member Jim DeLucia, who joined the July 12 committee meeting, summarized ideas that emerged in small groups: rooftop or integrated solar systems, a county sales‑tax increase with a shared half‑percent for local districts, a small fee tied to building permits or housing starts, cell‑tower leasing on district property, EV‑charging stations as a paid service, paid advertising on grounds or buses, and organized donor cultivation modeled on university alumni programs.
SWBR’s Mark Maddalina told the board that solar on district roofs is often installed as a ballasted system to avoid structural modifications and that battery storage and converters add cost; he said incentives for solar are “pulling back” and that a study or business case would be needed to test the return on investment. Another consultant who has worked on canopies and bus charging noted carport solar is feasible but carries canopy construction and structural costs.
The board discussed next steps: the advocates will receive meeting notes and the district plans to circulate a survey to gather more ideas from the community. The administration said it could return cost estimates and identify whether outside consultants are needed and would flag any consultant costs to the board before proceeding. One attendee offered to present donor‑engagement strategies used at the University of Rochester to the group.
Board members emphasized the committee’s role as a generator of ideas for the board to vet; several said the group’s work could identify one or two measures that materially reduce the district’s budget gap. No board action or binding commitment was made during the meeting.
