Budget preview shows roughly $1 million shortfall after fund‑balance assumptions; board hears capital proposition details

John Fink, the district presenter for the evening, gave the board a detailed look at the district’s preliminary 2026–27 budget assumptions and the capital propositions the board will ask voters to consider in May.

Fink said the rolled preliminary expenditure figure is about $97.6 million while revenue, under current assumptions, totals roughly $94.0 million — leaving a gap of approximately $3.5 million. "We assigned as an assumption a $2,500,000 fund balance, which gives us about a $1,000,000 shortfall," Fink said. He noted the unassigned fund balance is $3.7 million, near the 4% limit allowed under New York State policy.

Fink walked the board through reserve accounts (tax‑certiorari, ERS and TRS pension reserves, employee benefit accrued liability, unemployment insurance, and capital reserves). He said the district has been managing reserves to protect stability and that capital reserves (two fully funded, one partially funded) are intended in part to offset the May 2026 capital projects.

On the May ballot, Fink said there are three capital propositions: Proposition 1 (continuation/various improvements; described as "44" in the presentation), Proposition 2 ($21,100,000) for classroom additions at three buildings (Cornwall Elementary School, COH and another campus) and Proposition 3 ($14,600,000) for high‑school athletic fields; he said Proposition 1 must pass for Proposition 2 to proceed, and Propositions 1 and 2 must pass for Proposition 3 to go forward.

Board members questioned the budget choices that contributed to the current shortfall. Board member Christian noted earlier decisions to put $2.6 million into a capital reserve rather than use it for operating needs and urged the board to consider whether prior choices left the district short this year. "If we had gone to the tax cap in those years like we had done previously...we would have $5 or $6 million larger," Christian argued, urging a realistic discussion of tax‑levy strategy.

Fink said the administration is working with building principals and directors to identify options to cover the gap and plans to present a superintendent’s recommended budget on March 23. He noted state final aid numbers are still pending and could change projections.

Votes at a glance (from this meeting): • Consent agenda (items 2–6, 10, 11): moved, seconded and approved (motion recorded; transcript did not record a roll‑call tally). • CCTA MOA (item 7 — remote‑instruction one‑offs): approved after discussion. • Readoption of the 2025–26 student calendar (item 8): approved. • Adoption of the 2026–27 student calendar (item 9): approved.

What’s next: The superintendent’s recommended budget is scheduled for March 23; the board plans further review in April ahead of first adoption (April 21), the budget hearing (May 5) and the public vote (May 19). The administration will also finalize capital‑proposition wording with bond counsel and the OACM team and post materials on the district website for public review.

Ending: The board’s emerging choices include whether to raise the tax levy toward the cap, reduce program spending, or use limited fund balance; the administration will return with concrete options and updated revenue figures.