Board approves second fiscal projection and interim facilities appointment as teachers’ union urges review of interim hires

The Scotia‑Glenville board voted to accept a second fiscal projection for 2026 and approved an interim appointment to lead facilities management during retirements and transitions.

Administrators presented a first look at the governor’s proposed aid and the district’s projection. The presentation estimated about $456,000 in additional state aid for 2026–27 (roughly 1.8%), a projected surplus pushing the district’s projected fund balance to about $3.4 million, and a plan to use about $215,000 of reserves next year while continuing to monitor expense‑side savings. The figures were presented as preliminary because the state legislature had not finalized budgets.

Board members moved and passed acceptance of the second fiscal projection by voice vote.

Separately, the board approved a resolution to appoint an interim district director of facilities. The interim arrangement was described as a short‑term operational fix while the district canvasses candidates from civil‑service lists. The contract terms discussed in public included $55 per hour, no benefits and no paid holidays; administrators said the district would monitor hours to keep the cost within budget. An administrator noted the position is intended to be budget‑neutral because turnover savings offset the role’s cost.

Teachers’ union leaders and staff representatives raised concerns during public comment about the district’s reliance on multiple interim consultants and daily‑rate contractors while potential layoffs loom. Sarah Hoffman, president of the Scotia‑Glenville Teachers Association, listed recent interim contracts and asked the board to consider hiring permanent staff rather than paying high daily rates for consultants. “We could hire like 3 teacher assistants for that price,” Hoffman said, urging reallocation of funds to retain in‑district personnel.

Board members flagged the long‑term budget gap the district is working to close and asked administrators to produce more specific savings estimates tied to staffing and to outline the number of full‑time equivalents that would be affected under different scenarios. Administrators said previous years saw roughly 17 instructional reductions and additional non‑instructional adjustments, offering a ballpark for the board’s planning.

Next steps: Administration will bring clearer breakdowns of staff‑based savings and likely timelines for any reductions to aid board decisions during the budget cycle.