Albany BOE hears budget options amid state aid uncertainty; public raises concerns about administration and substitute nurse pay

Public comments at the City School District of Albany Board of Education meeting raised budgetary concerns about administrative staffing at Albany High School and the district’s substitute registered nurse pay before the board heard a detailed budget presentation from district staff.

Two emailed public comments read at the meeting urged scrutiny of administrative payroll and substitute-nurse compensation. Amanda Kennedy, a parent and taxpayer, asked why the high school and athletics offices have multiple administrators and requested an explanation of several athletics-related salary line items that she said appear large compared with other staffing. Suzanne McCarthy, the district health coordinator, urged the board to raise substitute RN pay to better match neighboring districts, noting the district has two substitute RNs to cover 18 public-school buildings and 12 nonpublic schools and that current rates hamper recruitment.

The public comments preceded a budget briefing from Mr. Karas, who presented revenue and expenditure estimates and options the board could consider before the district finalizes its budget for voter approval. Karas said the district’s tax-cap calculation is about 5.06% and that current projections show an estimated $1.6 million gap between projected revenues and expenditures. He presented two illustrative options: a 1.33% tax-levy increase (which would reduce the use of reserves) and a 1% increase (which would require using an additional roughly $396,000 from reserves). Karas emphasized the numbers remain contingent on the state budget and foundation-aid outcomes.

Karas walked the board through the major budget drivers: contractual obligations under labor agreements, health-insurance increases, state-aid uncertainty tied to the Rockefeller Institute’s recommendations and the still-unapproved state budget, and continuing costs for charter-school tuition and special-education placements. He said the operating budget estimate showed a near 4.9% increase in general-fund expenditures in the proposal.

Board members and the superintendent discussed enrollment projections, reserves and the possibility that the state approved aid could reduce or eliminate proposed property-tax increases. Board members emphasized that staffing adjustments the district was considering were driven by attrition and vacant positions rather than layoffs; one member said projected staffing ratios (students per teacher) remain roughly constant in the presented projection. The board discussed timelines for community budget forums, the May 8 budget hearing, and district outreach dates for public Q&A sessions.

Separately, the superintendent reported that statewide computer-based state assessments experienced technical problems early in the week and that some districts — including Albany — paused testing to allow the state and vendor time to address the issues. The superintendent and several board members said the interruptions raised questions about the purpose and timing of large-scale state testing and the burden on instructional time.

No formal budget vote occurred at the meeting. The board did adopt its routine-consent agenda by unanimous voice vote earlier in the meeting.