Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Partners topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victor board reviews five community‑partner ideas to boost revenue and reduce costs
Summary
A community partners committee presented five unanimous proposals — from major‑gift fundraising to energy projects — aimed at expanding revenue and lowering operational costs; the board will consider which ideas to pursue at its December meeting and could launch subgroups in January 2026.
The Victor Central School District Board of Education heard a presentation from a community partners committee that met three times this fall and unanimously forwarded five major ideas to help the district expand revenue and manage rising expenses.
Superintendent Tim Terranova told the board the group’s work was prompted by years of state aid that “has not kept up” with district needs and by a budget gap that prompted the board to authorize the use of more than $3 million in fund balance this year. James (committee member) and other community partners outlined five areas of work: legacy and major‑gift fundraising, other creative revenue streams (including vendor or tax “round up” concepts), educational program partnerships with local colleges and employers, a community education program to better leverage facilities, and energy‑and‑facilities projects such as solar or geothermal.
“The goal was to think outside the box — to increase revenue beyond state aid and property taxes and to develop partnerships,” Terranova said, introducing the committee’s report. James said the group used surveys and breakout sessions to refine a long list to five actionable ideas and proposed models modeled in part on university and foundation fundraising.
Committee members described potential specifics: targeted major gifts and alumni cultivation; recurring annual giving programs; corporate sponsorships for specific projects (for example, facilities naming opportunities); fees or programming for community education and facility rentals; and partnerships with local colleges for dual enrollment or workforce training programs. Dave Tantillo raised exploratory ideas around tax structures and county sales tax increments, noting legal review would be required before any action.
On energy and facilities, presenters said the committee had asked district staff to pursue a solar/PV study and had already tasked the newly formalized facilities committee with producing a five‑year facilities plan. The committee also flagged concerns about local grid capacity and the district’s ability to meet future mandates such as transitioning to electric school buses.
The board did not vote on any of the concepts at the meeting. District staff requested direction and feedback, with a target: the board will review the recommendations and aim to decide which ideas to pursue at its December meeting. If approved, the district plans to launch specialized subgroups in January 2026 to operationalize approved concepts and return a progress report in summer 2026.
The presentation noted that many ideas will require legal review, partnership agreements, and further vetting of costs and benefits before any revenue changes are proposed to voters or formally adopted.
