GOSHEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT presents $100.96M budget that leans on tax cap and reserves

Administrators for GOSHEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT on Wednesday presented a proposed $100,958,696 budget that relies on a near‑maximum tax levy and $4.9 million in fund balance and reserves to close a projected gap.

The presenter said the district’s total recommended budget represents a 4.3% increase overall and that staff worked to preserve programs while identifying nearly $1,900,000 in savings largely through attrition. “Almost $1,900,000 was cut out of the budget,” the presenter said, citing eliminated positions and line‑by‑line reductions.

District officials said special education enrollment and related services are a primary driver of cost pressure. The assistant superintendent for business told the board the district is projecting an increase in special‑education needs and that the special‑education section shows a 7.7% increase — about $1,600,000 — driven by tuition, BOCES placements and contractual services for pupil needs. She cautioned the enrollment figures are projections and that annual reviews and CPSE/CSE meetings through June could change the totals.

Administrators outlined specific personnel and line‑item adjustments: elimination of three positions plus an additional teacher‑on‑special‑assignment role, and identified specific savings lines (two full‑time elementary teachers, two full‑time aides and two full‑time teacher assistants were listed among reductions). The presenter also said the district will shift some communications work from Capital Region BOCES to in‑house staff and add an instructional‑technology position with a modest net cost (approximately $37,000), and that savings on summer student workers and reduced supplies account for further reductions.

On revenue, the assistant superintendent for business said the budget assumes the allowable tax levy increase (rounded to about 3.1%, representing roughly $1.7 million), increased local pilot payments, an anticipated $200,000 increase in interest income, modest state foundation aid under the governor’s proposal (about $217,000 for 1% foundation aid) and additional excess‑cost aid tied to rising special‑education expenditures. The administration plans to appropriate $3.7 million in fund balance and use $1.2 million from reserves to cover the remainder of a $4.9 million shortfall.

The proposal includes capital work funded from current funds: Phase 1 of a high‑school roof replacement estimated at $2,250,000, upgrades to the high‑school public‑address system for emergency reach, and refurbishment of high‑school tennis courts (presenter cited roughly $550,000). The assistant superintendent for business separately reported a lowest responsive bid for tennis‑court work from Craftco for $557,544; that item appears on the agenda for board action.

Administrators also explained the contingent‑budget scenario should voters reject the budget twice: the tax levy would remain the same but the district would be required to cut an additional $1,700,000 in permissible lines (not from transportation, textbooks or certain restricted supplies), which the presenter said would likely impact staffing, programs, athletics and equipment purchases.

The board heard the presentations and indicated general support for using the tax cap and reserves under the proposed approach. The presenter thanked staff who prepared the budget and said the board must adopt a final number at the next board meeting before the budget goes to public vote; administrators noted figures may adjust slightly before final adoption.

Votes on consent and routine new‑business agenda items took place later in the meeting and passed; the budget itself will be subject to the formal adoption process and then a public vote.