Scotia-Glenville board hears $2.8 million budget gap, signals preference to stay under 3.25% tax levy limit as public urges no teacher cuts

Board of Education members in the SCOTIA-GLENVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT on Tuesday reviewed a carry‑forward 2025–26 budget that shows an approximate $2.8 million gap and signaled they would prefer to stay at or under the state tax levy limit of 3.25% if possible.

The gap, district business staff told the board, stems largely from a steep increase in prescription drug and other health‑plan claims and an unexpected jump in out‑of‑district special‑education tuition. District staff described health and dental costs as a major driver of the shortfall and said prescription drugs — particularly GLP‑1 weight‑loss medicines — accounted for an outsized share of claims this year.

Why it matters: The board must indicate whether it will propose a tax levy under, at or above the 3.25% cap when the district files its report tomorrow. Board members said they want to avoid raising taxes beyond the cap if it requires cuts they find unacceptable; members also stressed they need more information and further drafts before final decisions.

Drew (district business staff) reviewed the numbers and said the carry‑forward draft requires a 6.33% increase in overall expenditures and the gap to the tax cap is roughly $2.8 million. He told the board: "the prescription drug has exploded" and listed health/dental and a sharp rise in out‑of‑district placements as the principal unexpected cost drivers.

Public commenters, primarily parents, teachers and students, urged the board not to balance the budget by cutting classroom teachers or core student supports. Sarah Hoffman, president of the Scotia Glenville Teachers Association, told the board: "The teachers union is not here simply to object or to stand in opposition. We want a voice at the table." She told board members that cuts to academic programming could worsen the district's graduation challenges and called for teacher representation on long‑range planning committees.

Parent and benefits‑specialist Amy Marlette pressed the district on health‑plan cost management and mitigation strategies and criticized the district for not filling an earlier HR vacancy: "17% at a renewal for a self insured plan is absolutely insane and doesn't make any sense," she said, urging steeper negotiation and administrative attention to benefits procurement and plan design.

Board members discussed "negotiables" and "nonnegotiables" for the coming budget. Several named school resource officers, mental‑health services and athletic/trades programs as priorities they do not want to cut; others said they would prefer to retain as many teachers as possible. Pam (board member) said mental‑health services, school resource officers and the athletic trainer are nonnegotiable for her; Chad (board member) said curriculum and the staff who deliver it are nonnegotiable.

On enrollment and structure, district staff reviewed a decade of declining enrollment and showed the district's smallest recent kindergarten class (143 students). Staff noted that declining enrollment is one reason districts consider consolidating elementary sections or, in extreme cases, closing a school, but the superintendent said her preference is to keep all four elementary schools open for 2025–26 and to use the coming year to study elementary configuration for 2026–27.

Special education: District staff reported a roughly 40% increase in some out‑of‑district tuition costs this year compared with recent historical averages and explained differences in aid ratios between BOCES and private placements. Staff said the district is exploring bringing one or two programs in‑house for next fall to reduce transportation and placement costs, but cautioned that those moves require space, staffing and successful Individualized Education Program (IEP) transitions.

Next steps: The board voted informally at the meeting to indicate a preference for going under the 3.25% levy limit if feasible. Staff will produce subsequent budget drafts and the board will set the public budget proposition and related propositions (including a capital/EV bus garage proposition) later in the process.

Community reaction and context: Several parents and community members asked the board to examine administrative staffing levels and supervisor salaries as part of budget savings; commenters requested greater transparency about outplacement contracts and the special‑education pipeline. Student speakers asked the district to increase outreach to collect student input on programs and safety measures.

The district also reminded the public that the school lunch program is operating under the Community Eligibility Provision (federally supported) and that any change in federal participation or state aid would materially affect revenue and expenditures.

No binding policy decisions were made at the meeting. The board approved routine resolutions and donations (see "Votes at a glance"), and staff will return with updated drafts and more detailed proposals for negotiables and nonnegotiables.