Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amherst Central School District proposes $87.09 million budget, two capital propositions on May 19 ballot
Summary
District officials presented a proposed $87,091,000 budget with a 3.4% tax‑levy increase, a $12.5 million tax‑neutral capital request for the high‑school heating system and a separate $17 million proposition that would raise taxes about $0.19 per $1,000 if approved.
Amherst Central School District leaders presented the district's final budget at a public hearing, proposing a $87,091,000 total budget and a 3.4% increase in the property tax levy. The proposal includes $1.88 million in capital exclusions and anticipates roughly a 2% increase in foundation aid and $2.8 million in expense‑based aid, largely in building aid.
The district said overall revenues are projected to rise about 6.6% and that new or increased grant funding for universal prekindergarten (UPK) allows some costs previously borne by the general fund to be shifted to the special‑aid (F) fund. Officials reported the expanded UPK grant increased per‑student funding from roughly $5,400 to $10,000, enabling additions to staff in the new UPK wing.
District staff described two capital ballot measures tied to the multi‑phase facilities project. Proposition 2 seeks an additional $12.5 million to replace the high‑school heating system; the district characterized this as tax neutral to homeowners. Proposition 3 would add $17 million to complete auditorium theatrical systems and renovate the high‑school gymnasium and locker rooms; the district projected a tax impact of about $0.19 per $1,000 for Proposition 3. Officials said Proposition 3 does not make sense to pursue if the heating‑system work in Proposition 2 fails.
Presenters attributed the need for extra capital funding to inflation, construction escalation and labor scarcity that pushed originally budgeted work over planned costs. The district described several cost‑saving adjustments made in earlier phases (for example, using precast dugouts and narrower walkways) but said those savings did not eliminate the shortfall for phase three.
On expenditures, personnel costs were projected to rise about 2% (about $800,000) because of contractual obligations and retirements; ERS/TRS changes were expected to be largely offsetting. The district expects health‑insurance costs to rise roughly 7.1% and projected an increase in debt‑service payments linked to recent borrowing for capital projects. To balance the budget, contingency was reduced from $2.0 million to $1.8 million with $1.0 million of that tied to an appropriation of fund balance and the remainder offset by state aid, officials said.
Officials described contingency rules if a budget fails: the tax levy cannot increase (effectively a 0% levy change), community use of buildings would require full fee recovery, equipment purchases would be prohibited, nonessential maintenance would stop, and raises for nonunion employees would be frozen. The board could choose to put the identical budget forward on the statewide revote day, present a revised budget for revote, or adopt a contingency budget without another vote.
Vote day was announced as May 19 (7 a.m. to 9 p.m.), with three board seats also on the ballot. The district will continue using electronic poll books and maintain an online community feedback form year‑round.
The presentation closed with a public Q&A and the board moved on to other agenda items; later the board approved routine business and moved into executive session.
