Fort Edward board adopts $13.46 million proposed 2025–26 budget after debate over new administrators

FORT EDWARD — The Fort Edward Union Free School District board on a special-workshop vote approved the district's proposed 2025–26 spending plan after a lengthy discussion of staffing, revenue assumptions and a business-office restructuring.

The board adopted the package the night of the workshop after the superintendent and business manager presented revisions that trimmed earlier increases; the business manager said the revised budget total would be about $13,461,558, a roughly 0.56 percentage-point rise over last year. The board approved the motion by voice; the transcript records the motion, a second and the chair's announcement that the motion passed but does not record an itemized roll-call tally.

Why it matters: The package funds a reworked administrative structure the district's leaders say is designed to stabilize leadership and the business office after a period of turnover and outsourcing. Presenters said the plan aims to trade short-term increases for longer-term predictability and to reduce operational risk if retirees depart.

The superintendent (speaker S1) framed the change as a step toward sustainable leadership and academic improvement, telling the board, “Failure is not an option,” and urging members to present the rationale to voters ahead of the formal budget vote. The business manager (speaker S4) laid out the revenue assumptions behind the numbers, including an estimated state aid of about $7.8 million, property-tax revenue near $3.0 million and reserve allocations used to offset costs.

Key details presented

- Budget total: business manager reported a proposed gross budget of about $13,461,558 after reductions from earlier drafts. The presentation also referenced an earlier figure near $13.56 million before targeted trims.

- Tax levy strategy: presenters recommended a modest, predictable levy increase near 2.19% (tax-impact calculations were discussed but not printed in the transcript); board members repeatedly asked for a clear per-household example to include in public materials.

- Administrative restructuring: the proposal reallocates duties into elementary and secondary principals, creates an assistant-principal/athletics role (titles to be refined for public presentation), and consolidates the director of pupil personnel services into the secondary principal's portfolio. Presenters said this change reallocates responsibilities rather than expanding long-term headcount.

- Business office: the district would move from a mostly-outsourced FEH/BOCES model toward an in-house structure that pairs experienced retirees with trainees to preserve institutional knowledge. The business manager cited historical FEH/BOCES costs and said the proposed trainee model reduces the risk from losing retired staff.

- Savings and revenue adjustments: lower-than-expected health-insurance premium increases (reported at roughly 15% versus earlier 21% assumptions) and tuition, reimbursement and miscellaneous revenue adjustments produced line-item savings that helped lower the net increase.

Board concerns and discussion

Several board members asked whether voters would accept added administrative titles and whether the district should phase in hires. One member urged pacing additions so residents would better understand the changes. Another noted past special-education leadership problems and argued the district needs reliable staff to capture tuition revenue and comply with state requirements.

Board members also pushed for clearer public materials explaining how the reorganization redistributes duties rather than simply adding positions; the group agreed to add explanatory language to the public pamphlet so voters would have context when the proposed budget is presented at the formal hearing.

The motion and next steps

A motion to adopt the proposed budget was moved and seconded at the end of the workshop; the chair announced the motion passed on a voice vote. The transcript does not record individual yes/no votes. The board said the package would be included in state filings and public materials ahead of the district's formal budget hearing and vote in May, and presenters said the administration will monitor the model and return next year for evaluation and potential adjustments.

What the record does not show

The transcript does not include a roll-call vote or individual tallies for the approval, and some per-household tax-impact numbers discussed in earlier presentations were not printed in the workshop transcript. Presenters agreed to add clearer language and examples for public outreach.

The board adjourned after brief closing remarks.