RCS board unveils $58.2 million 2026–27 budget plan, recommends 1.14% levy increase

The Ravena‑Coeymans‑Selkirk Central School District on Monday presented a proposed three‑part budget of $58,224,892 for the 2026–27 school year and recommended a 1.14% increase in the tax levy.

Superintendent Mr. Chandler opened the presentation, saying the district began the budget process facing a projected shortfall of more than $1 million driven largely by rising health and prescription costs, higher utilities and insurance, and contractual salary step increases. The administration emphasized three priorities it would not compromise: avoid layoffs, maintain core student services (instruction, special education, arts, counseling and athletics), and protect the district’s low student–teacher ratio.

Business staffer Jesse said the proposed total represents a roughly $1.2 million (2.2%) increase over the prior year. By function, program expenses account for about 76% of spending, capital roughly 15% and administration about 8.3%. Revenue is projected to come about 51% from the local tax levy, 39% from state aid and about 6% from other sources including roughly $2.6 million in PILOT (payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes) contracts. The plan assumes a planned use of fund balance of approximately $2.3 million (about 4% of budget) to balance the books.

Board members pressed for more line‑by‑line detail before the April vote and were offered finance‑committee meetings and one‑on‑one briefings. Trustees repeatedly asked for historical comparisons and itemized changes so voters would see what would be preserved and what would be reduced if the budget is approved.

On staffing, administrators said they have avoided layoffs by reassigning responsibilities and not filling some positions; the presentation identifies about eight teaching FTEs not being refilled this year. Several trustees raised concern that reductions concentrated in front‑line classroom roles risk longer‑term impacts for students, and asked the administration to reexamine whether administrative or instructional support positions could be reduced instead.

Benefits costs were a focus: district presenters said prescription expenses rose sharply this year and the district is self‑insured, forcing it to lock in higher reserve and contribution levels now. Transportation contractual costs were reduced by pulling some runs in‑house earlier in the year, producing savings but leaving contingency money for driver shortages.

Jesse described state aid assumptions conservatively (a 1% foundation‑aid increase included in projections) even though legislative proposals were discussed at higher rates; he cautioned that building aid from recently completed capital work was material to the district’s aid mix and affected the allowable tax‑levy calculation. The business official recommended the board adopt the tax‑cap‑limited increase (1.14%) rather than seek a supermajority vote this year because the district faces multi‑year structural pressure.

The administration said it expects to provide quarterly projections on fund‑balance use so the board can monitor the planned drawdown, and to present more detailed line‑item backups to trustees ahead of the April 15 vote. The formal budget vote by district voters is scheduled for May 19 at the high school.

The board did not take a final vote on the budget Monday; the presentation served as the required public disclosure and trustees scheduled additional review before bringing a final proposition to voters.