Scotia-Glenville outlines budget scenarios, proposes staff reductions to meet tax‑levy choices

Superintendent Susan Schwartz presented final budget options and asked the Scotia‑Glenville Central School District board to choose a spending limit that balances program needs, staffing and the legal tax‑levy cap.

The presentation by district staff emphasized that the district’s unassigned fund balance sits at roughly the state‑allowed 4% threshold and that recent projections show a year‑end surplus around $2.1 million. Drew, a district staff member, said the district had built scenarios that rely on a combination of fund balance, retirements left unfilled and program realignments to avoid a steeper tax increase. He said the plan the administration brought forward uses about $4.1 million of fund balance in lieu of raising taxes and would result in an estimated tax‑rate increase of about 1.63 percentage points under the district’s preferred scenario.

The board heard three basic options: (1) adopt a spending limit that stays within the tax‑levy limit (a 3.25% levy increase), (2) go out over the cap with restored priorities such as a school resource officer (SRO) and summer “learning leaps” (resulting in a levy and rate nearer 4.47% and a public‑facing tax‑rate near roughly 3.0% in the proponents’ framing), or (3) return to the original higher levy presented in February (around 6.75%). Drew cautioned that drawing down the unassigned fund balance below historical practice could put the district at fiscal risk and harm its bond rating.

To reach the tax‑cap target the administration itemized roughly $2.8 million in reductions achieved through a mix of measures: about 10 retirements (reported as 8 certified teachers and 2 teacher assistants) producing roughly $937,000 in savings; special‑education and pupil personnel service (PPS) restructuring; five positions reallocated at the middle/high school level ($447,000); administrative realignment and secretarial/clerical reductions ($226,000); building and grounds staffing changes (two outsourced cleaning positions and a hybrid floating custodian schedule); and reduced textbook, supplies, contracted transportation runs, professional services and utilities savings. The administration also noted a $50,000 transfer from the retirement reserve to the appropriated fund balance and estimated additional miscellaneous billings and interest income that narrow the gap.

Board members pressed for details on program impacts. In response to questions about reading instruction and library services, Mr. Arquette and other administrators said they had worked with principals to reassign staff where possible, propose shared librarian schedules across elementary buildings, and maintain a single full‑time middle‑school reading teacher while redeploying other certified staff to offer reading support. Staff acknowledged these are not direct one‑for‑one replacements of specialized reading certification, and that some elementary buildings could see higher class sizes or shared services.

Superintendent Susan Schwartz framed the tradeoffs explicitly: restoring the SRO and learning‑leaps programs would increase the levy by roughly the amounts discussed at the meeting (administration cited about $71,000–$75,000 for both items) and would push certain scenarios above the tax cap, which requires a 60% voter approval if placed on the ballot. She offered to bring two prepared resolutions to a one‑item meeting next week so the board could adopt a spending limit with additional time to consider the choices.

Public comment in the second comment period focused on program impacts. Sarah Hoffman, president of the Scotia‑Glenville Teachers Association, said, “14 positions reduced tonight without discussion with those people is kind of mind‑blowing to me,” and urged the board to consider equity and the programmatic effects of removing reading and library positions. Parent Christina Stryjek told the board, “These reductions are going to affect both our high and our low achieving students,” and urged the district to examine administrative staffing before cutting classroom supports. Resident Amy Marlette criticized the timing and asked why the board had not pursued longer‑term options earlier.

The board did not adopt a final spending limit during the meeting; instead members agreed to return next week with two formal resolutions (one reflecting the restored programs and one reflecting the superintendent’s draft that meets the cap) so they can vote after additional review. The administration said any decisions to bring students back from out‑of‑district special‑education placements depend on hiring qualified staff and would be budget‑neutral compared with current out‑placement costs.

Clarifying details from the presentation include: the district’s unassigned fund balance target is 4% of the ensuing year’s budget (reported in the audit); a projected June 30 banked balance approaching $4.7 million before planned uses; reductions tied to 14 touched positions (12–14 district FTEs affected depending on vendors and filled vacancies); $937,000 estimated savings from retirements; approximately $374,000 in unfilled leaves held in the budget with no immediate economic impact; and an estimated $500,000 potential impact if federal Community Eligibility Program thresholds change and the district loses free‑meal eligibility.

Next steps: the board scheduled a one‑item meeting for further deliberation and to consider two resolutions that would set the district’s spending limit and identify whether to restore the SRO and learning‑leaps funding.