Rochester board hears $38 million budget gap, plans participatory budgeting and staffing review

The Rochester Board of Education on Thursday reviewed a projected $38 million shortfall in the Rochester City School District’s general fund for the coming fiscal year and discussed steps the district will take over the next five months to produce a balanced budget.

“The budget is more than a financial document. It’s a reflection of our values, strategic priorities, and our community’s aspirations,” Deputy/Interim Superintendent Demario Strickland told the board, urging collaboration while emphasizing the board’s legal responsibility to submit a balanced budget.

The gap is based on the district’s current estimates: roughly $918,000,000 in general fund revenue against about $955,000,000 in projected expenses. Acting Chief Financial presenter Derek Blair summarized the figures to the board: “That leaves us with a $38,000,000 budget gap.”

Why it matters: the district is under state monitorship and must submit a balanced budget to its state monitor; Strickland said the district must file its budget package by March 1, per requirements that apply to school districts under monitorship. Board members repeatedly pressed for a process that preserves classroom positions where possible and seeks savings through central-office efficiencies, contract reviews, position-management actions and better use of three years of historical data.

Planned process and public engagement

Strickland and staff described a timeline that began with department budget requests in December and moves through daily staffing and budget reviews in January, an initial draft book at the end of January, a public presentation in March and a final board vote on the budget in May. “In January ... we will sit through budget presentations each and every single day to review staffing that must have staffing justifications,” Strickland said.

Vice President Lebron said the board will pilot and expand a participatory-budgeting platform, Balancing Act, to collect community priorities and decisions tied to monetary trade-offs. “Participatory budgeting allows us to put our budget out there, and then also give options of decisions that we really have to make ... and gives the public an opportunity to weigh in,” Lebron said, describing prior focus groups and a limited rollout last year.

State monitor participation and outside examples

State monitor Alisaya (state monitor) described Syracuse’s participatory-budgeting experience, saying the Syracuse City School District started its program in 2017 and later coordinated with that city’s government to let the public allocate fixed sums across broad categories. The monitor emphasized the requirement that participatory exercises work within the total budget envelope presented to the public.

Options to close the gap discussed

Board and staff outlined several levers that could help close the gap: 1) review of full-time equivalents across central office and schools, distinguishing mandated from non-mandated positions; 2) operational cost reductions through more accurate forecasting and cutting unspent recurring line items; 3) eliminating double-budgeting by coordinating grant (Title and other federal/state) budgets with general fund budgets; 4) reviewing contracts to assess return on investment; 5) vacancy analysis to determine whether long-standing vacant positions can be eliminated or repurposed; and 6) “true ups” to reduce overstaffing in classes by combining low-enrollment sections.

Board members urged caution about harming instruction. Commissioner Malloy, Commissioner Simmons and Commissioner Griffin each said they want to prioritize literacy, career and technical education, social-emotional supports and transportation while keeping cuts “as far away from the classroom as possible.” Commissioner Patterson repeatedly pressed for deeper contract review and earlier warnings about positions funded by temporary federal grants, saying decisions to create or upgrade administrative positions in prior years contributed to the structural pressure.

Other concerns and context

Vice President Lebron raised the potential impact of federal policy changes and cited “Project 2025” as a risk to federal funding streams; she asked staff to track the district’s federal funding share. Strickland reiterated uncertainty about next year’s state and federal funding until the governor’s executive budget and the Legislature finalize appropriations in January and later.

Board members also discussed transportation challenges created by prior school reconfigurations, access to the budget book for the public, and options to preserve student services such as free school lunches if federal supports change. Commissioner Santiago suggested exploring farm-to-school grants being offered by New York State as one possible avenue.

Formal action recorded

The board briefly voted to enter an executive session at the start of the meeting; Vice President Lebron moved the motion and Commissioner Malloy seconded it. No other formal budget decisions or votes were taken during the work session.

What comes next

District staff will continue daily budget reviews with the state monitor and prepare an initial draft budget book for the board at the end of January. Staff said they will track board questions in a budget log, coordinate grant and general-fund meetings among budget analysts and department managers, and follow up with a public participatory-budgeting rollout later this winter.

The board discussion provided direction but no final decisions on specific cuts, which board members said they expect to see when staff present specific scenarios during the January–April deliberation period.