Caledonia‑Mumford superintendent presents $23.56M budget that keeps tax levy flat

Becky Schnell, superintendent of the Caledonia‑Mumford Central School District, presented a $23,560,437 spending plan for the 2026‑27 school year and said the district will keep the property tax levy flat for a third consecutive year.

"This budget will come in at $23,560,437," Schnell said, and she emphasized the plan is "mission‑driven" and preserves instructional programs and staffing even while holding the levy steady.

Schnell and district staff said the budget combines instructional priorities with facility and safety investments. The presentation listed about $35,000 per year for updating security cameras and described planned upgrades to the district's EcoStruxure building‑controls system to fix communication glitches and improve HVAC monitoring.

On transportation, Schnell said the district plans to purchase a diesel bus and explicitly pushed back on buying electric buses until the district can reliably meet route and safety needs: "I feel like until electric buses can get the job done, we don't intend to buy any."

Business‑office staff, introduced at the meeting as Mr. Polowel, outlined the revenue side and reserve strategy. He said the district will appropriate $200,000 from an unemployment reserve this year to help close the budget. He also explained that a recent capital project is increasing debt‑service outlays but that much of that increase is offset by New York State building aid, which the district estimates at roughly 84% of eligible building costs.

Polowel said the district's debt service line rises by about $1,000,000 year‑over‑year to roughly $2,400,000, and the district expects about $2,100,000 in state building aid related to that payment. "So where we might have on paper $2,400,000 in debt payments, we're actually getting almost entirely that from New York State to make those payments," he said.

The presentation included budget composition figures: about 70.5% of spending is earmarked for direct student instruction and supports, 17.6% for capital, and the remainder for administration and facilities. Schnell said the budget‑to‑budget increase is 8.77%, driven primarily by capital projects coming on‑line.

Schnell described the contingency process if voters reject the budget. She said the board could re‑offer the same plan or change it; after two failed public votes the district must move to a contingent budget that removes items "exactly what the law requires." The meeting presentation identified equipment/capital outlay of about $61,294 as an example of an item that would be removed under a contingent budget, with the contingent total shown as $23,399,143.

Schnell urged turnout for the district vote on the 19th, noting voters will see three propositions: Proposition 1 (the proposed budget with a 0% levy), Proposition 2 (use vehicle reserve to purchase a diesel bus), and Proposition 3 (two open Board of Education seats). She said the back of the district newsletter shows the ballot language and offered to help first‑time student voters understand the process.

During a public Q&A, an audience member asked about the district's reserves. Schnell estimated roughly 30% of operating budget lives in reserves with about 18% in operational reserves; Polowel put a figure "just under $7,000,000" for certain reserves and said the capital reserve holds about $22,400,000. He cautioned that many reserves are restricted by purpose and cannot be freely reallocated to retire bond debt.

The meeting did not include any formal motions or votes; the propositions will be decided by voters on the scheduled district ballot.