The Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District board held a budget workshop where district staff presented a three-part budget proposal, recommended a 3.56% tax-levy increase and described a safety-focused capital proposition and vehicle purchases that will appear on the budget vote.

Business/staff presenter Jesse summarized key figures and drivers in the proposed budget. He described a multi-million-dollar spending plan that he characterized in the meeting as a district proposal and said the change year-over-year is about a $2.3 million increase (presenter cited the total budget figure in meeting materials). “This year we're going to be proposing a $56,056,900 budget. It is a $2,300,000 increase,” Jesse said during the presentation (transcript wording provided by staff presentation; exact formatting in slides may differ).

Jesse identified the major budget drivers: contract obligations (salary increases negotiated in collective bargaining), health-benefit cost increases (including a cited pharmaceutical-premium rise and about a 9.5% increase in health premiums for the consortium), increases in employer retirement contributions (ERS at 16.5% projected) and higher debt service tied to capital projects and bus purchases. He said program (instructional) spending represents roughly 77% of the budget and that local revenue is expected to provide about 51% of revenue while state aid is roughly 39%.

Jesse recommended the board adopt the full tax-levy limit of 3.56% for the next fiscal year, describing how that choice affects future levy calculations if a large pilot revenue enters the tax rolls next year. “Tonight I am going to recommend that we go at the full cap at 3.56% which will be a little bit over $1,000,000 increase up to $29,000,000,” he said. Staff explained that going to the cap this year dampens a potential negative tax-levy calculation next year when a large pilot (newly assessed value) comes on board.

Staff proposed using approximately $750,000 from the district's capital reserve to cover upfront costs for a safety capital project that will also be included on the upcoming vote; the total project estimate discussed in the presentation was slightly over $2 million. The safety project budget items listed in the presentation included window-film hardening for vestibules, electrification and replacement of selected door hardware, panic/lockdown push buttons and “door-prop” alarms that detect doors left open, additional cabling to modernize PA/AV systems and visual alerting devices in commons and large spaces. Jesse described contingency and design fees (architect and construction contingency estimates) in the capital estimate and said most items are contract-based and would not require additional public bidding.

Board members asked clarifying operational questions: whether panic buttons or door alarms would notify police dispatch (staff said the installed panic buttons would lock down buildings on-premises and that door-prop notifications could be routed to SROs or other recipients), which doors and buildings would be covered (staff said a majority of doors across the district but agreed to provide a follow-up list), and how exterior visual alerts would be positioned so Becker campus visitors would see them when approaching the building from the long driveway.

Jesse also presented planned vehicle procurements: three smaller “micro” buses or passenger vans (including a 10-passenger EV vehicle) to replace larger, underfilled runs and reduce operating/maintenance costs. He noted there are ongoing grant opportunities that could offset EV purchases and that manufacturers currently report long lead times (one salesperson told staff of a roughly 10-month wait).

On program changes, staff proposed expanding summer-school offerings and noted an approximate $150,000 increase to restore elementary summer programming; replicating the prior Discovery Camp model across all grades would cost more (staff estimated roughly $200,000 for elementary only and around $300,000 total for all age groups in earlier discussions).

Finance discussion included fund-balance projections. Jesse said the presentation reduces planned use of fund balance from prior years (proposal uses $2.3 million of fund balance rather than previously larger draws) and that the five-year projection shows downward pressure on reserve levels if current revenue and cost trends continue. Board members raised concern about that trajectory and urged working to align recurring revenues and expenses.

Next steps identified in the meeting: the board will vote to adopt the proposed budget (three-part budget) and the 3.56% tax-levy limit at the next business meeting; staff will provide follow-up details on door coverage for the capital project, timing and procurement options for EV vehicles, and more granular cost breakout for the safety package prior to the public vote.