Amherst CSD proposes $81.67 million budget, tax levy rises 2.33% under state tax-cap

The Amherst Central School District presented its proposed $81,672,000 budget for the 2025–26 school year at a public hearing, saying the tax levy is tax‑cap compliant and would rise 2.33% if voters approve the plan.

District officials told attendees they used January executive‑budget aid estimates to forecast a projected $1.7 million (about 5.8%) increase in state aid and that foundation aid is expected to rise by just over $1 million. Without a final state budget, presenters said the January figures were the most reliable numbers available.

The budget presentation emphasized preserving instructional programs, health and safety, and social‑emotional supports. The spending plan would increase total expenditures from the current $78.7 million to the proposed $81.672 million, an overall increase the presenter described as 3.66% driven largely by personnel and benefit costs and higher special‑education and BOCES expenses.

The hearing also summarized revenue and reserve use. The district plans to allocate roughly $1.0 million from fund balance and about $186,000 in appropriated reserves (including $60,000 for tax certiorari and $20,000 for unemployment), for a combined reserve appropriation just under $1.2 million — similar to the current year. District staff said debt‑service premiums from recent borrowing will be used to lower the levy. Community Education revenue and other miscellaneous revenues were projected to remain stable.

Presenters spelled out contingency‑budget rules that would take effect if voters reject the proposition: the district would be required to keep the levy flat (0% increase) and would face restrictions including no new equipment purchases (equipment purchases defined as items with unit value of $5,000 or more), no nonessential maintenance, and limits on facility use by outside groups: "Community members and organizations are not permitted to use our facilities or grounds without paying the full operating costs," the presenter said. The district estimated a contingent budget would reduce proposed spending to about $81,088,000, a 2.92% increase in spending with a 0% levy increase.

Staff also reviewed program and staffing changes included in the proposal: the district listed 10 teacher retirements (four at the high school, one at the middle school, four at Windermere), a senior custodian retirement, and a teaching assistant resignation; officials said the district will rehire the vacant positions. Additions include a third‑grade teacher at Smallwood and a social worker at Windermere; two vacant positions (an elementary ELA teacher and a one‑on‑one special‑education aide) will not be refilled because of shifting program needs.

Other line items spelled out in the hearing include a projected ERS employer rate increase from 15.2% to 16.5%, a small TRS decrease from 10.11% to 9.59%, a health‑insurance budget projected at about $9.7 million, and a workers' compensation premium reduction of about $77,000 (roughly 23%). Transportation costs were estimated to rise by about 8% ($387,000) as the district is in year two of a three‑year contract extension and expects to go to bid for the following contract year.

The hearing also covered required public summaries (tripartite and component budgets); the district reported administrative costs of roughly $7.5 million (under 10% of the total) and reiterated the goal of keeping the bulk of spending on programs and instruction.

On the ballot: proposition 1 will ask voters to approve the proposed expenditure budget of $81,672,000 using the 2.33% tax‑cap‑compliant levy. Also on the ballot are two Board of Education seats; incumbents Nicholas DeMarco and Lori Goldhawk were listed as candidates in the budget materials and district newsletter. The district will use electronic poll books on election day; absentee and early ballots are available by contacting district staff.

The hearing closed after attendees asked clarifying questions about contingent‑budget definitions, equipment thresholds, and whether recent resignations were accounted for in the adopted budget figures; staff said those late resignations were not embedded in the current presentation but would be reflected in future budget updates.

Looking ahead, presenters encouraged continued advocacy for state aid, noting the district’s three‑year forecast shows conservative estimates and potential gaps that would shrink if foundation aid increases beyond January projections.