Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Rochester Community Schools outlines $1.95M and $4M budget-adjustment packages as state budget remains unsettled

Rochester Community Schools Board of Education · September 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Superintendent Russo presented two budget-adjustment packages — a $1.95 million "least-impact" plan and a deeper $4 million option — after closing FY24-25 with an unexpected roughly $300,000 addition to fund balance. Trustees asked for more charts and follow-up before any action.

Superintendent Tim Russo told the Rochester Community Schools Board of Education on Sept. 22 that final numbers for the 2024' 25 fiscal year improved from the district's June projection, producing about $300,000 more in fund balance than expected and prompting presentation of two savings packages in case state aid is reduced.

Russo said the district received "approximately $750,000 more in state revenue" tied to categorical funding, with local revenue increasing by about $300,000 and departments underspending by roughly $3,000,000, producing an overall variance of about 2.2 percent. He reminded trustees the state budget remained unsettled and warned that a prolonged state shutdown could require additional actions.

The administration presented two scenarios. "Package A," described as the lower-impact option (about $1,953,000 in net savings), would rely on central-office staffing restructures rather than school-level layoffs, a 10 percent reduction to all building and department budgets, a custodial restructure estimated to save about $280,000 (converting seven positions to contracted roles at an estimated $40,000 per position), and modest revenue changes including shifting credit-card processing fees to families, a $15 fee for some summer "credit ahead" programming (estimated to yield about $17,200) and a slight athletic-ticket pricing change (estimated revenue roughly $52,000).

"Package B" includes everything in Package A and adds deeper measures totaling about $4,000,000 in adjustments: elimination of district-paid athletic transportation and field-trip transportation, elimination of district-paid field-trip costs, and pausing off-site conferences, as well as additional personnel and service-model changes (including roughly $1.2 million from shifting some ACE/service functions back to buildings).

Trustees pressed for specifics. Trustee Lozan asked what the custodial restructure would look like; the superintendent said it reflects converting seven contracted positions (secondary level) and that the estimate could change if vendor rates rise. Trustee Alsbaugh and others asked for more clarity on current athletic pricing: the administration noted the district currently lists a $5 athletics price and a $1 service fee in some contexts, which could result in an effective $7 charge under some options; the administration said it would confirm exact current service-charge details.

Several trustees sought earlier and clearer financial reporting. Trustee Lacui requested quarterly charts showing final 2024' 25 receipts and expenditures; Russo agreed to work with the finance director to provide more timely reconciliations ahead of the Nov. 10 audit presentation. Trustees generally commended the administration for preparing concrete scenarios while urging caution about cuts that would meaningfully affect student programming.

The board took no final action on either package at the meeting; Russo said he was not recommending action that night and would return with further details and audit results in November.