Albany school board approves 2025–26 appropriations, draws questions over staffing and class sizes

The Greater Albany Public School District board adopted its 2025–26 budget appropriation and related financial resolutions Wednesday night and approved the 2026–27 expenditure authority and several GASB compliance measures, while parents and staff urged the board to reverse teaching reductions and clarify class-size thresholds.

At the start of the business portion, district staff asked the board to adopt the budget the budget committee had approved with one change: adding up to $1,358,000 to the special revenue fund to cover potential PCB testing and related costs, with the final grant amount subject to indirect-cost rules. The board passed the 2025–26 appropriation resolution by voice vote after a motion and second. The board also approved a GASB 103 budgetary comparison resolution (defining “significant” variances as both 10% and $100,000), the 2026–27 budget resolution to grant expenditure authority, and a GASB 54 fund-balance designation, all by voice votes.

Business staff said the PCB grant is reimbursement-only and that the district will not begin testing until it reaches agreements with bargaining units; reimbursement is available through June 30, 2027. The board also approved organizational resolutions designating signature authority and vendors and accepted insurance renewals totaling $2,156,982 for the coming year.

Public comment shifted the night’s tone. Gabrielle Resch McNally read a petition from more than 100 parents at North Albany Elementary asking the board to restore two-and-a-half teaching positions they say were removed from that school. “Staffing cuts will lead to class sizes approaching or exceeding 30 students,” the petition warned, and asked whether the district would wait until classes reached 35 students before adding certified staff as permitted under the contract’s thresholds.

Janine Toplane, a third‑grade North Albany teacher, used a fable to warn against neglecting the system’s foundation: “If an entity does not support and nourish what lies at its roots—elementary education with small class sizes—it cannot expect to flourish,” she said.

Staff and board members repeatedly cited the contract and budget constraints when answering operational questions. The business manager explained that FTE (full‑time equivalent) compensation is the largest portion of the budget and that alternatives were considered before personnel reductions; she said the district trimmed from a roughly $10 million projected deficit down to about $4 million through a mix of grants, cuts and other adjustments.

Board members encouraged continued dialogue and transparency. Several asked staff to post existing Apex PCB testing results and the testing methodology to the district website to address concern and to improve transparency while the district pursues further testing contingent on grant funds and bargaining outcomes.

The board closed the financial items by approving the consent agenda and several budget-related motions. The meeting record shows that the budget appropriation and supplemental GASB items were approved by voice vote with no roll-call tallies provided in the transcript.

The board indicated it will return to public‑comment procedures at its August meeting to consider how to accommodate larger in‑person audiences and whether to change speaker time limits.