Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brighton district outlines $3.66M budget gap and proposes 3.98% tax levy with targeted cuts
Summary
The district presented a preliminary executive budget showing a $3.66 million gap driven by salaries, health insurance, retiree health and BOCES costs; it proposed a 3.98% tax levy and level‑one reductions (class size changes, hiring freezes, attrition) with forums and a May 19 vote scheduled.
The Brighton Central School District presented a preliminary executive budget that projects a roughly $3.66 million shortfall and offered a tentative strategy that combines a 3.98% tax levy request with targeted reductions to limit program cuts.
The presenter (Superintendent) opened with revenue assumptions: $1.2 million in proposed new foundation aid and an additional $1.2 million achievable via a 1.95% property tax levy under the cap, creating about $2.4 million in expected new revenue. Large expense drivers included a 4% salary increase (about $1.9 million), a 6% health insurance rise (about $1 million), an approximately $1.1 million increase in retiree health care costs and a $1.2 million rise in BOCES costs. Those combined pressures, the presenter said, create a gap of about $3.66 million, roughly 3.3 percent of the budget starting point.
"If your new revenue coming in is only $2.4 million, and $2 million of that is a health care cost, what about everything else? It just doesn't fit," the presenter said.
To address the gap, the district proposed a middle path: seek a 3.98% tax levy (which would require 60% voter approval if it exceeds the state cap) while implementing level‑one reductions to soften the impact; level‑two reductions would be necessary to remain at a 1.95% levy. Level‑one reductions include hiring freezes realized through attrition, modest class‑size adjustments at the elementary level, reductions in some counseling and teacher‑leadership time allocations and scaled‑back extracurricular funding. Presenters emphasized that level‑two reductions would cut non‑mandated programs such as extended studies, the primary K‑3 project and certain elective offerings.
The district provided homeowner impact examples: a home valued at $250,000 would see an estimated $285 annual increase under a 3.98% levy versus about $146 under a 1.95% capped levy. The presenter underscored that capital project reauthorization for the high‑school project is funded through capital reserves, debt service and state building aid and does not change the general fund starting point.
Next steps: the superintendent said the board will present a final executive budget on April 7, hold a budget hearing on April 12 and ask voters to approve the budget on May 19. The district plans multiple community forums (April 8 and 15, 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.) to explain the choices and their programmatic consequences.
The board did not vote on the tax‑levy proposal at this meeting; the presentation was preliminary and will be revised as state budget action clarifies aid levels.
