Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen administration presents $100.95 million proposed budget and outlines $5.1M gap; options include modest levy increase, reserves or cuts
Summary
Administration presented a $100,952,647 proposed budget for 2026–27 with a projected $5.1 million gap. Officials said choices include overriding the tax‑levy cap to 5.5% (requiring a supermajority), appropriating more fund balance, or reducing expenditures including staff; final guidance is expected April 7 and adoption April 21.
Goshen Central School District administrators presented the district’s proposed 2026–27 budget and laid out options to close an estimated $5.1 million shortfall.
Assistant Superintendent for Business Ms. Van Tassell Laumeren told the board the proposed grand total is $100,952,647, a 4.3% increase over the prior year. Projected revenues under current state aid numbers total roughly $95.85 million, leaving an approximate $5.1 million gap.
Administration outlined three principal paths to close the gap: override the tax‑levy cap (administration said fully closing the gap would require increasing the levy to about 5.5% and that such an override would need a supermajority vote), appropriate additional fund balance (a one‑year possibility but not a sustainable long‑term strategy), or reduce expenditures including staffing. Officials noted a potential additional 1% in foundation aid—about $216,570—would reduce the shortfall but not eliminate it.
The presentation broke instructional spending into five sections (curriculum development and supervision; teaching regular schools; special apportionment; instructional media; and pupil personnel services) and singled out salaries, contractual BOCES costs and special‑education placements as primary cost drivers. Administrators said they had identified roughly $785,000 in reductions across many codes through a line‑by‑line review but stressed no programs were recommended for elimination in this proposal.
Officials reviewed reserves (employee benefit reserve, unemployment reserve, tax cert reserve and capital reserve) and noted the employee benefit reserve could be used to offset certain retirement‑related invoices; they cautioned that heavy use of reserves is not a sustainable multi‑year strategy. The district reiterated it plans a 3–5 year approach to restore fiscal balance and requested the board provide clear direction at the April 7 meeting so staff can finalize options for adoption on April 21 and present the budget to voters in May.
Board members asked for more detail on the largest drivers of the special‑apportionment increase, the per‑taxpayer impact of levy scenarios, and the evening high school program’s costs and outcomes; administration agreed to provide additional breakdowns in follow‑up materials.
Next procedural steps: the administration will present refined options at the April 7 board meeting; the board will adopt a proposed budget on April 21 and the public vote is scheduled for May 19.
