Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
South County board previews 2026–27 budget with 3.49% tax-levy proposal and $13M capital vote
Loading...
Summary
At a March 10 meeting, district staff presented a first-draft 2026–27 budget that projects a 3.49% tax-levy increase and recommends four propositions — including a $13 million capital project the administration says would carry no tax increase — for the May 19 ballot.
Ms. McAllister, the district presenter, laid out a first-draft 2026–27 budget on March 10 that projects a 3.49% tax-levy increase and described four propositions the board plans to put on the May 19 ballot.
"We would like to ask the community to support us in doing a $13,000,000 capital vote ... so there would be no tax impact to the community with this additional proposal," Ms. McAllister said, describing a plan to use $4.7 million in capital reserves plus state building aid to leverage approximately $13 million for additional work, including cooling and renovated classroom spaces.
The administration presented revenue assumptions it said were driven by the governor's executive proposal and fiscal advisers' estimates of state foundation aid. The presentation noted a modest growth in foundation aid but limited federal aid changes; it also flagged inflationary pressures (CPI ~2.7%) and higher pension contribution rates (ERS noted at about 17.6%). The presenters said the district currently estimates a tax-levy increase of 3.49 and a program component of roughly 2.5 percent, with the tax-cap and a small tax-base growth factor (1.0031) constraining levy growth.
Budget gap-closure options listed included (a) modest additional tax levy where legally allowed, (b) use of appropriated fund balance (presenters said the appropriation was about $3,785,000), (c) strategic selection of program additions, or (d) a mix of those measures. Ms. McAllister said the district is targeting a balanced budget by the second draft in April.
On capital planning, the administration proposed adding a $13 million capital proposition that would leverage current reserves and building aid and, separately, a proposition to reestablish a $10 million capital reserve (a 10‑year authorization rather than an immediate $10 million deposit). The administration said the capital plan is intended to carry a minimal or zero taxpayer impact because of the reserve and anticipated state aid, but added voter approval would be required.
Transportation needs would be addressed on the same ballot. Ms. McAllister outlined purchases including six 66‑passenger buses, two 24‑passenger buses with wheelchair lifts, a 16‑passenger bus and a six‑passenger minivan, to be financed and aided over five years; presenters said the district's transportation aid ratio would keep the tax impact very small.
Board members pressed presenters for implementation detail and supporting data. One asked for a five‑year revenue/expenditure lookback; Ms. McAllister agreed to provide that in follow-up. Another member asked how additional administrative positions (a proposed director of elementary curriculum and other staffing) would fit with existing supervisors and instructional coaches. The administration said those positions were proposed to improve K–6 alignment and to bolster supports for ELL and MTSS processes, and cautioned that not all first‑draft items would make the second draft given revenue uncertainties.
Key next steps and dates announced by the administration: a tentative budget workshop on March 31, a second‑draft presentation April 14 (community budget forum at Shaker Road), a final presentation April 21, a public hearing and the May 19 budget vote and board election, and certification on May 26.
The board did not take a final vote on the budget at the March 10 meeting; the administration said it will return with a second draft after reviewing BOCES services and any updated state aid figures.
