Grand Island superintendent presents revised 1.5% levy; public hearing spotlights contingency cuts and bus funding ahead of June 16 vote

Dr. Brian Graham, superintendent of the Grand Island Central School District, told an audience at the board’s public hearing that the administration has reduced the district’s proposed tax levy increase from 2.69% to 1.5% and trimmed roughly $500,000 from the spending plan since the May vote.

"If this revised budget does not pass on June 16th, New York State Education Law requires us to adopt a contingency budget," Dr. Graham said, warning that a contingency budget would hold the levy at 0% and force the district to forgo some purchases and to consider cuts that could affect student programs, transportation and building maintenance.

Why it matters: The board framed the revised plan as a community‑shaped compromise that preserves teaching positions and classroom programming while reducing nonstudent‑facing line items. If voters reject the plan, state formulae limit the district’s options; the board said it would reconvene to direct specific cuts before the start of the next fiscal year.

Key numbers and what the district said: The superintendent gave the total spending plan as about $81,185,805 and said the revised budget reduces the earlier proposal by roughly $500,000. The district presented the 1.5% levy as equivalent—on its example—to roughly $71 a year on a $397,000 home (about $5.46 a month); officials described those figures as approximate illustrations for voters. Administration representatives also estimated that the contingency gap the budget would close is roughly $629,855 and cited about $85,000 for modified sports across the year as an example of a student‑facing cost under consideration.

Public feedback and pushback: Dozens of residents spoke in a widely split public comment period. Some parents and staff urged support for the budget as an investment in student programming and community property values. Teacher and resident Allison Dukat urged the public to recognize district efforts to protect school programs while responding to public feedback: "They heard what we said. They were very thoughtful about the cuts they made while still protecting the integrity of our schools," she said.

Other speakers pressed for more detail. A resident who identified himself as Mike pressed the district to correct social‑media posts he said were spreading false claims about mandatory program cuts and about how the contingency levy is calculated. Administration and board members responded that many items the district listed were "under consideration" choices that the board, not state law, would direct; they reiterated that contingency rules set a 0% levy limit but do not automatically specify which discretionary student programs a district must eliminate.

Transportation and buses: Several speakers asked about the district’s replacement plan for buses and whether proposed vehicles are electric. Interim business official Doug Whan said the district’s current bus purchases in the propositions are not electric; he also described state timelines for electric‑bus mandates as recently extended and said the district has not planned to install charging infrastructure until it is mandated. The board and staff also discussed special‑needs transportation and explained that some placements outside the district are driven by individualized education plans and reimbursement rules rather than simple mileage limits.

Board action and next procedural steps: After the public hearing, the board moved and unanimously approved several routine action items on the evening’s agenda: instructional personnel items (PI1–PI10), non‑instructional personnel items (PNI1–PNI6), and finance items A–J (including budget transfers, donations, obsolete textbook disposals, sale of retired buses and an installment purchase agreement for 500 replacement Chromebooks). Each motion was recorded as "Motion carried 7–0." The public hearing was closed and the board urged voter turnout for the June 16 district ballot, when polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.

What remains uncertain: The board repeatedly said it will publish or provide more granular budget breakdowns on request (the district budget book is available on the website) and will reconvene with a public special meeting to determine which discretionary items would be cut if a contingency budget is required. Several residents asked the district to publish a clearer contingency plan now, arguing that it would help voters decide.

Closing note: Board members and the superintendent repeatedly thanked speakers and encouraged turnout for the June 16 vote; the district framed the revised budget as a compromise intended to limit tax pressure while protecting classroom programs and staffing.