Victor Central School District projects $7.66 million budget gap; leadership outlines attrition plan to protect programs

Victor Central School District Superintendent Dr. Teranova told the board on March 11 that the district is facing a projected 2026–27 budget gap of $7,658,869, driven primarily by an expected near‑15% increase in health‑insurance costs that would consume most of the district's projected revenue growth.

The gap arises as expenses are projected to rise by about 7% while projected revenue increases are roughly 3.38%, Dr. Teranova said. "Our actual expenses are going up close to 7% while our projected revenue is only going up 3.38%," he said. He described the shortfall as a "structural deficit" and warned the board that the district's operating reserves are now smaller than the projected gap.

Why it matters: personnel costs account for roughly 75% of district spending, and health‑care increases alone are expected to use about 87% of the district's projected revenue growth for 2026–27, staff said. That concentration leaves few options to close the shortfall without harming instruction, the presenters said.

What the district will do: Christine Griffin, assistant superintendent for business, and David (Dave) Facero explained a multi‑part strategy that preserves current programs and avoids layoffs while addressing the gap:

- Strategic attrition: capture savings when employees retire, resign or transfer rather than through layoffs. The district identified expected efficiencies equivalent to eight elementary general‑education teacher positions and one secondary science teacher through attrition.

- Targeted reinvestment: redeploy savings into high‑impact needs (for example, .4 FTE in technology and .6 FTE in world language at the junior high) to meet scheduling needs and maintain services.

- Manage class sizes: remain within established class‑size parameters while leaning toward upper ranges where enrollment declines allow it.

- Use reserves temporarily: the board and staff said contingency funds set aside at year‑end (roughly $6.8–7.0 million in operating reserves) will be used to balance 2026–27, but cautioned this is likely the last year that such a strategy can be used at this scale.

Griffin said district leaders prefer to avoid layoffs and noted contractual obligations and fringe‑benefit exposure make cutting personnel costly and complex. "We want to preserve programming and our workforce," she told the board.

Board questions and staff responses: Board members asked for clarity on how part‑time positions (.4/.6) translate into full‑time equivalencies and benefits; Griffin said staffing and hiring approach will determine whether combined part‑time roles equal one FTE. The board also pressed staff on teacher "overages" (extra sections assigned above a teacher's contract load). Facero said overload pay is sometimes used to meet student demand, but that hiring full‑time staff usually carries higher fringe and benefit costs.

Reserves and revenue constraints: presenters emphasized the district's limited ability to raise revenue under the state tax cap or rely on state aid: a 1% increase in foundation aid generates roughly $271,000 for the district, staff said, making it impractical to fill multi‑million gaps solely by state aid or the tax levy.

Next steps and timeline: staff will continue to refine the budget and present updates. Key dates include board adoption of the 2026–27 budget on April 16, a budget hearing May 5 and the public vote and board election on May 19.

Board action: Later in the meeting the board voted to authorize the legal notice for a bond proposition for the May 19 ballot and approved other routine agenda items; staff said further budget work will be discussed at an upcoming budget workshop on March 26.

Ending: District leaders reiterated a preference for long‑term financial health that avoids program cuts and preserves staff while pursuing revenue and efficiency options with community partners and state advocacy.