Rondout Valley presentation: proposed 2026–27 budget shows 2% spending rise; district to seek tax‑cap levy

Superintendent Paul Spado told attendees at the May 5 meeting that the RONDOUT VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT is proposing a 2026–27 budget that keeps most student programs intact while constraining overall spending growth.

"We want to minimize staff reductions moving forward," Spado said, and described a budget that presenters characterized as about a 2% increase in total expenditures from 2025–26 to 2026–27. He said the district is "asking to go to a 3.282% tax levy" to fund next year's budget and that the presentation projects roughly $82.9 million in expenditures and a multi‑million dollar revenue shortfall that the district intends to cover in part with approximately $3.1–3.2 million in fund balance and some reserves.

Tabitha, the assistant superintendent for business services, walked through revenue assumptions, including property taxes (the levy), state aid projections based on the governor's proposal and miscellaneous receipts. She noted the state budget had not been finalized as of the presentation and the district was using the governor's January proposal for planning.

Spado and Tabitha said the proposed budget would continue funding curriculum upgrades (new math and ELA), expanded social‑emotional learning curriculum, CTE/Boces offerings and related services such as OT/PT. They also highlighted a federal grant the district is pursuing for electric buses and charging infrastructure in the Town of Rochester; presenters said that grant (described in the meeting as about $10 million) would pay for future EV buses and reduce a potential capital ask to taxpayers.

The presentation noted tradeoffs if a contingency budget is required: the district would forgo the levy increase and therefore lose the projected $1.8 million in additional property‑tax revenue tied to the cap calculation.

What happens next: the district encouraged voters to participate in the May 19 Board of Education election, and the board proceeded to its regular agenda after the public Q&A. The budget presentation materials and a budget video were posted on the district website, the presenters said.

Numbers noted here reflect figures presented at the meeting. There are minor transcription inconsistencies in percentage comparisons discussed in the presentation (some passages referenced a "32%" or "34%" decrease from prior figures); the district should be consulted for the official budget documents and final levy calculations.