Greenville Central School District previews 2025-26 budget, recommends 1.83% tax levy while exploring restorations

Greenville Central School District finance staff on March 3 presented a preliminary 2025‑26 budget that includes capital, administrative and program components and assumes a 1.83% tax‑levy increase. Todd, the district’s presenter, said the package would leave a remaining shortfall of about $216,003.60 under that levy and outlined areas staff are continuing to refine before board adoption on April 7 and the public vote on May 6.

Todd said the district’s revenue picture depends heavily on state aid and property taxes, which together account for roughly 95% of projected revenue. "We have the state aid piece and the real estate taxes — putting those 2 together make up about 95% of our overall revenue for the budget," he said, and noted that preliminary figures include an overall revenue increase of about 4.25%, roughly $1.5 million above the current year.

On state aid, the presentation projected a 9.11% increase overall (about $1.38 million), with building aid rising by roughly $999,003 because the district’s current capital project is expected to qualify for the first full year of aid once final cost reports are submitted. Todd described how the district used capital reserves (about $2.6 million) in the current project, required short‑term BAN borrowing in 2024–25 and will shift to long‑term bonds next year — changes that raise principal and interest lines in 2025–26 but will be offset in part by building aid.

The capital component discussion included buildings and grounds requests and modest equipment changes. Rich, who spoke to the buildings and grounds slide, described a trade‑in of the district tractor, purchases of maintenance equipment and a planned switch at the elementary school from fuel oil to propane; those changes and small staffing additions in custodial budgets were factored into the capital totals.

On the administrative side, Todd said contractual expenses rise 11.73%, driven primarily by insurance increases (including cybersecurity and umbrella policies). BOCES services and certain software/support costs are also expected to tick up.

Staffing choices were a central element of how the district moved toward balance. Todd and Mike outlined three retirements and said the district plans not to refill two positions next year — a PE teacher and a high‑school social‑studies position — while filling an elementary vacancy. The district described those moves as data‑driven and said class sizes would not be significantly affected; administrators estimated modest class‑size increases of about 2–4 students in affected sections.

The budget assumes the state‑set tax‑cap growth factor that produces a 1.83% maximum levy increase for this proposal. Board members debated whether to use a higher levy; several members said they favored staying at or below 2% to avoid triggering higher public resistance in future years, while others urged looking for ways to restore at least one instructional position if additional savings are found before final adoption. "I'd like to have them both restored, actually," one board member said during the discussion.

Todd identified a short list of items staff are tracking that could improve the bottom line before April: final health‑insurance rates, fuel‑bid results coordinated through BOCES, and end‑of‑year spending decisions that could shift some purchases into the current fiscal year instead of 2025‑26.

The board was asked to give staff guidance on the levy; Todd said the formal adoption will occur April 7 and the budget vote is scheduled for May 6. The meeting adjourned after the discussion.

What’s next: staff will update the board on final insurance figures, fuel bids and any feasible restorations; the board is scheduled to adopt the budget April 7 and the public vote is May 6. The district’s presenter said additional refinements will be reported at the next meeting.