The Board of Education held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 24, to review the district’s evolving 2026‑27 budget, consider cost‑saving options and discuss next steps to address the remaining projected $1.8 million budget gap.
Superintendent Daniel Mayberry presented an updated draft proposal reflecting revised interest‑earning estimates and the use of fund balance (district savings) to help close the shortfall identified in the initial draft. The revised revenue projections, which will be formally presented at the March 31 board meeting, balance anticipated revenues and expenditures.
The proposed budget totals $133.9 million, an increase of about $6.7 million, or 5.27%, from the current year. It includes the maximum allowed tax levy of 3.42%, which would generate $87.2 million in levy revenue.
In response to board feedback from the March 17 meeting, the revised proposal incorporates about $2 million in available fund balance, representing unspent funds from the current year. Using this amount could leave the district with no remaining unrestricted savings entering the 2026‑27 school year, limiting flexibility to address unexpected costs. Any expenditures exceeding projections would likely require additional cuts.
Higher‑than‑anticipated interest earnings, driven by unchanged federal interest rates, are expected to generate approximately $300,000 in additional revenue. Combined with available fund balance, roughly $500,000 could potentially be used to restore programs or positions reduced in the initial draft.
The revised proposal includes eliminating the district’s director of diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as a proposed half‑time director of special programs. Although long‑term data show administrative staffing has declined nearly 18% over the past 20 years, eliminating the DEI director position would reduce administrative staffing by a total of 20.6% over 20 years. Compared with other Suburban Council districts, Guilderland ranks toward the lower end in administrators per student, but near the top for lower student‑to‑teacher classroom ratios.
In addition, Board members discussed how to balance the budget without cutting student‑facing programs, including athletic teams, co‑curricular clubs and teaching assistants. They also emphasized the need for long‑term financial planning to address rising costs and inflation, which could eventually require voter approval of a budget exceeding the state tax cap.
The discussion will continue at the March 31 Board of Education meeting. As this is a regular board meeting, there will be a public comment period.