Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brunswick Central Board reviews third draft budget as health insurance, debt service push costs higher
Summary
Board members heard a third-draft budget showing a 7.38% year-to-year increase driven largely by a projected 16% jump in health insurance costs and new debt service for a planned capital project; trustees discussed using fund balance or raising the tax cap to close a roughly $1.36 million gap.
The Brunswick Central School District (Brittonkill) Board of Education reviewed its third-draft 2026 budget and heard that a combination of higher health-insurance premiums and debt service for an upcoming capital project are the largest drivers of a projected year-to-year increase.
Janine Casquale, a resident who spoke for the presenter role in the meeting, told trustees: “So our budget to budget as of Tuesday, we’re looking at a 7.38% increase.” An administrator added that the board is “looking at 16% increase on health insurance,” and cautioned that final health-insurance and pharmacy figures will not be available before the board’s March 20 meeting.
Why it matters: salary and benefits account for roughly 75–80% of district spending, so insurance spikes have outsize effects on the levy. Trustees were told a portion of the increase is debt service tied to a capital project the district plans to start later this year; staff said that debt service is being offset by planned revenue, including an interfund transfer and capitalized interest.
Board members walked through the principal pressure points. Contract settlements cited in the presentation include a 3.25% raise for CSEA-represented staff and a 4.5% inclusive step increase for the teachers’ unit. Transportation also figures into cost pressures: the district currently contracts two bus runs that each cost “over $100,000” and is exploring bringing those runs in-house with district drivers to reduce future contract costs.
Administrators presented specific offsets and cuts. The board removed several discretionary requests from the draft (presented in red on a slide) and identified about $227,000 in savings tied to retirements, reduced professional‑development days and other staffing changes. The presentation also noted roughly $10,000 in Medicaid reimbursement revenue the district currently collects for eligible services.
On choices to close the gap, trustees discussed preserving reserves versus using assigned fund balance. The draft showed a projected budget gap near $1,360,000 under a 3.55% tax-cap scenario; one option on the table is using about $1 million of fund balance, another is seeking a higher levy under the tax-cap rules. Administrators said they will hold faculty and staff sessions to walk through the numbers and explanations for the public before final votes.
What’s next: staff said they will return with finalized insurance figures and follow-up analysis at the rescheduled March meeting, and the board will continue deliberations on whether to use reserves or pursue a higher levy to close the remaining gap.
