Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy City School District proposes 1.75% tax levy to help close roughly $4 million budget gap
Summary
District presenters told the board a proposed 1.75% tax levy would raise about $660,000 toward an estimated $4.0 million gap in the 2025–26 budget; administrators said they will avoid layoffs, hold eight vacancies, use grant carryover for social workers, and transfer a one‑time $3.6M small‑city grant to capital projects.
Mister Carmelo told the board at the district’s budget hearing that the Troy City School District is proposing a 1.75% tax levy for 2025–26 to raise roughly $660,000 toward an estimated $4,000,000 budget gap. He framed the proposal by pointing to district academic gains and the need to preserve programs and small class sizes while facing late and uncertain state aid.
The administration presented student achievement data it said showed gains in ELA and math and noted five of six tested schools recorded their highest‑ever math proficiency rates. That improvement, district leaders said, informed budget choices aimed at preserving advanced placement and college‑credit offerings at the high school.
Mister Carmelo told the board the state’s minimum foundation aid increase of 2% was inadequate for Troy — which he said receives about 65% of its revenues from state aid — and that an early draft of the district budget showed a roughly $4 million shortfall. “1.75 is where we landed,” he said, adding the increase would average about $5.25 per household per month.
To limit recurring costs, leaders said the district will not lay off staff but will leave roughly eight vacant positions unfilled for now and perform a review before replacing roles. The administration also described shifting three social workers’ salaries from the general fund to special‑education grant carryover this year, an action it said yields about $1.27 million in nonrecurring savings but is not a long‑term solution.
Mister Carmelo said the district expects a one‑time ‘small city’ grant of approximately $3.6 million and plans to transfer that revenue to capital projects — including site work for a planned tech wing at the high school and upgrades to athletic fields and concessions. He emphasized that one‑time aid should not be used for recurring expenditures.
The administration warned of the consequences if the budget is rejected: after two failed votes districts must adopt a contingency budget that requires a 0% tax increase, would force roughly $1.2 million in cuts and place restrictions on building use and purchases, including technology. The administration referenced a prior two‑year contingency period that left facilities and technology purchases behind.
The board and administration encouraged community turnout for the May 20 budget vote and said outreach tools — postcards and on‑site iPads at voting locations — would be used to improve accessibility. No formal budget vote was recorded in the transcript; routine business and consent agenda items were approved by voice during the same meeting.
Next steps: the budget remains subject to the public vote on May 20 and to final state aid numbers when the state’s allocations are released.
