Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Noninstructional topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairport board reviews 2025–26 noninstructional budget; state aid rise offsets some costs
Summary
At its Feb. 11 meeting the Fairport Central School District presented the noninstructional portion of the 2025–26 budget, outlining a 6% increase driven largely by employee benefits and maintenance costs and noting a projected $641,000 rise in foundation aid under the governor's proposal.
The Fairport Central School District on Feb. 11 presented the proposed 2025–26 noninstructional budget, projecting a roughly 6 percent increase driven chiefly by employee benefits, maintenance and utilities and ongoing transportation costs. District finance staff said new state aid proposals would partially offset the increase.
The noninstructional portion of the budget, described as the district's essential services, includes general support, transportation, facilities operations and debt service. "So, big big piece overall, $1,700,000,000 increase to school aid proposed," said Matt Stevens, the district business official, summarizing the governor's school-aid proposal and its implications for Fairport. Stevens told the board the governor's proposal includes a minimum 2 percent foundation-aid increase for all districts that lifted Fairport's projected foundation aid by about $641,000 for 2025–26.
Why it matters: Stevens said most of the noninstructional increase is concentrated in employee benefits and rising health-care costs, which the district projects will rise in the coming year. "That's the big increase that we see there. And you'll notice as we get to the end, it accounts for most of the increase in the non instructional budget," Stevens said. The board and superintendent emphasized that noninstructional services (transportation, facilities, safety/security and technology) are required regardless of declining enrollment.
Key figures and context: The district reported 410 residents began the thought-exchange survey and 367 completed it; responses prioritized school improvement, curriculum/instruction, class size, mental health supports and facility modernization. Transportation costs were estimated to rise modestly after the district reduced contracted routes by hiring more in-district drivers; the transportation capital plan proposes an annual bus-replacement program (typically nine to ten buses per year) at a net budgeted purchase of about $1.8 million, with trade-ins reducing local share. Stevens said building-aid and bus-aid reimbursement formulas vary: bus purchases are aided over five years and building aid is amortized over 15 to 30 years depending on the project.
On benefits, the business office projected a roughly 9.5 percent increase in employee-benefit costs for 2025–26, driven mainly by a consortium health-plan rate increase that had a 14.4 percent rise in January. Stevens said the district participates in a self-funded consortium (RASP 2) to manage health costs and that medical claims experience was the principal driver of the higher budget projection.
Board comments and next steps: Board members thanked staff for a recent "under the hood" budget series and for facility and department visits that informed the budget work. The district will present the instructional portion of the budget in March and deliver a full recommended budget in April ahead of the May public hearing and May 20 budget vote and board elections.
Discussion versus decision: The presentation was informational; no final budget adoption occurred at the Feb. 11 meeting. The board requested ongoing updates and additional detail on health-care projections, transportation replacement plans and projected state-aid finalization following the legislature's budget actions.
