This has been (the 2025-26 school year) one of the most fiscally stressful years in the recent line of fiscally stressful years. Let me

tell you why I have come to that conclusion. To me, based on my multitude of financial workshops this year and work with my

contracted business clients I have come to categorize school districts into three general categories within the Statewide School

Finance Consortium community.

Category 1: School districts concerned for the future

These are school districts are beginning to realize they are not as financially secure looking into the future as

they had hoped they would be.

These school districts are recognizing the slippery slope of their maintaining current and predictable future

financial practices related to items such as:

•“rightsizing the budget”

•Long-range budget analysis

•Resetting program expectations based on enrollment declines

•Resetting attempts at increased efficiencies to thwart escalating costs

•The planned and careful use of reserves

•The true meaning of an appropriated fund balance

•The management of Real Property Tax Law §1318

•Management of public perceptions particularly related to the tax cap

•Knowing how the tax cap actually works and its implications

•The importance of cash flow

•Succession planning for critical positions

•Ongoing training of board of educations about the nuances of educational finance

•The process of making difficult decisions that includes research, and evaluation related to

goals and expectations, a realistic appraisal of current and future conditions and the need for

“selective abandonment” of practices or programs that are ineffective, inefficient or no longer

practical or affordable

Category 2: School districts that know they are in financial trouble

These school districts have done research, and it clearly indicates that their financial future puts

them in jeopardy through a diminishment of educational resources and the inability of their

finances to support their mission.

These school districts requested support as they further examine ways to increase their

educational and financial survivability over the next few years. The have identified the sacrifices

that will need to be made, the outreach that will be required to their communities, and an

examination of other options including internal and regional approaches and even perhaps usually

as a last effort, mergers to secure the futures of the children under their charge.

Category 3: School districts that have not figured out how much financial trouble they’re in

as the future quickly approaches.

These school districts have not had the time, resources or inclination to examine their long-term

condition in the light of their mission, community expectations, and their relationship to the

financial underpinnings of the district.

These school districts tend to be very vulnerable to the vacillations of taxpayer support, state aid,

and the opposing influence of rapidly escalating costs that include but are not limited to:

•Collective bargaining agreement financial obligations

•Pension costs growth

•Medical insurance escalations

•The rising population of students with special needs and the increased cost associated with

these important services.

•Staffing patterns compared to enrollment changes

•Community expectations for educational and ancillary programs

My suggestions

Once the books are closed at the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year:

•Look at fund balances from the most recent budget and compare them to previous years.

•Analyze and identify portions of the expense side of the budget that are escalating faster than

revenues.

•Analyze and identify portions of the revenue side of the budget and the realistic potential for

increased revenue.

•Determine whether fund balances have been used to balance this recent budget

•Analyze and identify the reserves held by the district.

•Determine if reserves held by the District are proper reserves for the future

•Determine if any or all the reserves will be used in future budgets to balance the budget or for

their designated purpose.

•Make sure you have a five-year plan for technology, equipment, vehicle, and bus replacement

as well as capital projects.

•All projections for escalating expenses should contain something related to the realistic cost of

the items and/or inflation.

•Determine whether the district is maintaining enough cash flow so that those items that are

unanticipated in the budget will find sufficient financial resources available when they arrive.

•Re-examine debt service schedules and their impact on the tax cap.

•Make good use of your auditor... if you need a message delivered have them deliver the

message and support you.

•Use the team approach when analyzing finances, This is not a one-person job. Two heads are

better than one and three are better than two.

•Make sure that your analysis is detailed enough to come up with an accurate portrayal of your

financial condition currently and forward without wasting time in the weeds.

•Report out the findings of your studies.

•Your report should include findings, implications, caveats, considerations and

recommendations.

In Closing

Be prepared for another difficult financial year.

Board members please attend regional NYSSBA and regional School Boards Association

meetings. Superintendents please be active in NYSCOSS and regionally. And of course,

School Business Officials partake in NYASBO and the regional chapter meeting and

workshops.

Work regionally and statewide, learn to lobby and of course:

Attend Statewide School Finance Consortium (SSFC) workshops. If you need one for

your regional unit, give me a call, I’m ready!

Be well,

Rick

As another school year comes to a close, the Central New York School Boards Association extends its deepest gratitude to every board member and superintendent who serves our schools and communities with dedication, integrity, and purpose.

Public education is strengthened by leaders who willingly invest their time, energy, and expertise in support of students, families, educators, and communities. Whether navigating complex challenges, celebrating student successes, making
difficult decisions, or planning for the future, your commitment to educational excellence continues to make a meaningful difference across Central New York.

We would also like to extend our heartfelt congratulations to this year's Board Member Achievement Award recipients. Your dedication to professional growth, continuous learning, and effective governance reflects the very best of educational leadership. We are proud to recognize your accomplishments and your commitment to serving students and communities throughout our region. To all board members and superintendents, please know that your efforts do not go
unnoticed. We see the countless hours you devote to public education, the thoughtful leadership you provide, and the positive impact you have on the lives of students every day.

As summer begins, we hope you find opportunities to rest, recharge, and spend time with family and friends. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to public education and for the leadership you bring to your districts and communities.

From all of us at the Central New York School Boards Association, thank you for your service, congratulations to our Achievement Award winners, and best wishes for a safe, enjoyable, and well-deserved summer.

We look forward to continuing our work together in support of public education in the year ahead.
Have a great summer,

Derrick Dorsey

Executive (Governor’s) run not same as February run

There are some differences. Look for differences related to demographics and student weighting in Foundation Aid and expenses driven aids in particular.  You may also see small changes in the textbook, library, software, and the like aid categories. 

Most of the changes are related to updated student counts and weights since the ordinal October submissions by school districts.

Save- Harmless school districts:

The numbers of Save-Harmless school districts have risen substantially over the last few years, despite the most recent changes in the formula for 2025-26 Foundation Aid. Absent significant changes to the underfunded Foundation Amount (Adjusted Foundation Amount (AFA)) as well as other changes such as major increases in weighting of students with special needs (SWD weighting) and increased weighting for students such as the economically disadvantaged and ELL areas for instance, joined with additional financial considerations for homeless and foster care students, Save-Harmless school districts designations for 2026-27  could continue to rise compared to 2025-26.  

About two-thirds of all school districts are now Save-Harmless.  The Foundation Aid formula needs a lot of work to make it adequate and equitable.  Using more of the Rockefeller Foundation Study suggestions would help.

The Bus mandate is still in effect... the state not listening m(they are not acting either!.  

Please see the January newsletter for a summary of this issue.

My recent studies with school district points to significant limitations of revenue increases, vs. significant cost increases on the horizon.  This spells trouble for school districts long-range.  This also makes their ability to buy Zero-Emission buses more remote and financially antagonistic.

Ask legislators to return to  their willingness to address state aid with their one house budgets back in March of 2025:

This year, as in all election years, we again look for a robust Executive budget proposal in January 2026, and support from the New York State Senate and Assembly in their one house bills to follow.  It is hoped that no further economic downturns will befall the state financial picture and that revenues will continue to have a healthy increased trend to offset current projected deficits for next year and the years thereafter.

FOUNATION AID AND OTHER FINANCIAL ISSUES AT BUDGET TIME March 2026

The Senate wants to increase Foundation Aid to a due minimum of 3%. 

Increase the amount per pupil for Universal Pre-K

Raise the ceiling for capital outlays in Building Aid from $100,000 to $250,000. 

resume funding for payment of prior year aid adjustments owed to school districts with appropriations of $18,600,000.

repeal the Community Schools set-aside within Foundation Aid and establish a new Community Schools grant program funded at $105 million. provide $6 million for districts with tax certiorari and tax levy issues. 

provide a $70.2 million increase for the Learning and Enrichment After-School Program Supports.

support compliance with federal courts that school districts provide free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities until they reach age 22.

The Assembly wants to increase Foundation Aid to a due minimum of 2.9%.

Proposes increased weighting for English Language Learners from .5 to.65

Provides for a change in the Income Wealth Index metric by elimination of the .65 floor over  a three-year period. 

Increase the amount per pupil for Universal Pre-K

resume funding for payment of prior year aid adjustments owed to school districts with appropriations of $18,660,000.

provide a $100 million increase for after-school programs in school districts which primarily provide for economically disadvantaged students.

o   $2 million to support school regionalization efforts.

Serious Issues Remain

Foundation Aid:

Still Generally Outdated

Still the Wrong Metrics

Still Arbitrary

Increase in number of Districts Save-Harmless?

Homeless Enrollment

Equity Adequacy

Perception of School Finances

School Budgets:

Escalations of Student and Family Mission

Escalation of Costs- Health insurance, Pensions, Labor, Equipment, Capital Work

Depletion of Reserves

Legal and Political Issues/ State and Local:

Leadership Turnover

Boards of Education

Administration and Senior leaders and educators

Practical Regional Issues

School Labor Force Issues

Bus Drivers, Bus Monitors, Bus Mechanics

Business Officials, Superintendents

Upper-Level Math and Science teachers

o   Cleaners, Custodians, Maintenance Mechanics

New Pre K mandate information:

From Association of School Business Officials of New York:

Important Information About the Executive Budget Universal Prekindergarten Proposal

“First, the proposal is indeed for all four-year-olds to be eligible for prekindergarten through a requirement that by 2028-29 districts provide a full-day slot to any 4-year-old child whose parents have requested it. This requirement can be met through either district- or CBO-operated programs.

Second, for 4-year-olds, there is no cap on the amount of aid received or the number of slots you may provide. Aid is the greater of $10,000 or your current selected Foundation Aid per pupil for all 4-year-old students in full-day UPK programs (these per pupil amounts are halved for students served in half-day programs). Districts that previously received Statewide Universal Full-Day Prekindergarten (SUFPK) awards would no longer receive these awards beginning in the 2026-27 school year, as the Executive Budget effectively consolidates SUFPK into the UPK program.

Third, the Executive Budget does not change the current UPK program for 3-year-olds. Districts’ funding for 3-year-olds would be maintained at its current per pupil levels. Districts that receive UPK funding for 3-year-olds must continue to serve their maximum eligible 3-year-old pupils in order to receive their maximum 3-year-old UPK grant amount.

Fourth, because this is an expansion of existing programs and the entire universe of 4-year-olds who will join these programs is not known, your state aid run amount in 2026-27 is an estimated proxy of what the State anticipates you may be able to provide in 2026-27; it is not a limit on the amount of aid you will receive or the number of slots you can or must provide.”

Nice concept but....

·      How does a district plan and budget for the unknown, strategically and logistically?  

·      Does every school district have the “room” for these additional sections?

·      What about transportation aid for this?

·      Interesting, but I don’t believe Kindergarten is mandated...

·      Has this mandate been studied? 

·      For many school districts this will be a “heavy lift”.  Think of the related costs.....

Other state aid and financial initiatives

·      Permit Transportation Aid for Pre-K programs  

·      Excess Cost Aids are aid categories that have not been updated in years and continue to be unrealistically frozen or simply without merit in terms of equity. These aids categories should be addressed for equity and adequacy. 

·      All aid due to school districts in the “Prior Year Aid Queue” must be paid on an accelerated basis. $308 million is owed due to claims corrections. 

·      Increase RPTL §1318 to at least 10% …   4% is SIMPLY TOO LOW!!! How about 10%?

·      The state must reevaluate its state aid initiatives every 2 years for equity, adequacy, and sustainability. (The Rockefeller Report Agreed to this type of reevaluation)

What is next?

Produce a lobby plan and talking points.  I encourage you to seek allies from parents, key community leaders, and others to help you lobby.  Often school district residents can provide valuable support as voters toward mutual goals! 

See you soon,

Be well, 

Rick

As we look ahead to the 2026–27 school year, the Newfield Central School District will take an important step to support students and families: the district will purchase all required school supplies for every student.
At its core, the mission of a public school is to level the playing field each and every day. Schools exist to ensure that access to opportunity is not determined by circumstance. By providing essential learning materials for all students, we remove a practical barrier and ensure that every child begins the year equally prepared.

This initiative reflects our responsibility to create fair and consistent access to the tools students need to succeed.

Providing a standard supply kit for every student also sends a powerful message. All students will have access to the same high-quality materials. No one will feel different because of what they have or don't have on their desk. While school supplies are only one part of the educational experience, leveling this aspect matters. It reinforces the idea that in Newfield, every student starts on equal footing.

This initiative also supports our commitment to maintaining a safe and predictable learning environment. Predictability reduces anxiety, and consistency builds confidence. When students know they will have the tools they need, when teachers know every child is equipped for instruction, and when families know exactly what to expect, we strengthen the stability that allows learning to flourish. Providing supplies is about more than materials. It removes uncertainty and ensures the focus remains on teaching and learning from the very first day.

For families, this change eliminates long supply lists, rising costs, and uncertainty about purchasing the correct items. We cannot wait to tell Newfield families that next year, all they will need to bring to Open House is their smiles.

This plan is also grounded in fiscal responsibility. By utilizing services such as Educational Data Services, which conducts competitive bidding on behalf of school districts, we can secure significant savings through bulk purchasing. When purchasing is streamlined and widely adopted, the savings often offset the additional costs associated with providing supplies for all students. For this reason, we are committed to implementing a user-friendly, efficient system that ensures strong participation and maximizes financial returns.

Providing school supplies for every student is one more step the Newfield Central School District is taking to create an equitable learning environment while remaining fiscally responsible to our community. It reflects our belief that access, stability, and thoughtful stewardship go hand in hand in supporting student success.

By Dr. Rick Timbs (and a little help from Chat GPT)
Executive Director, Statewide School Finance Consortium

Let me be clear at the outset: this is not an argument against clean air, environmental responsibility, or innovation. School districts support those goals. I support those goals.

What I am increasingly concerned about is the growing gap between policy ambition and operational reality when it comes to electric school buses in New York State.

Over the last several years, school districts have been told that a full transition to zero-emission buses is not optional. Diesel purchases must stop by 2027, and full electrification is required by 2035. That may sound like a long runway in Albany. On the ground, it’s anything but.

Recent reporting by the New York Post has added real-world data to concerns school districts have been raising quietly for years — about cost, reliability, infrastructure, and basic feasibility.  Exclusive | Lee Zeldin hits the brakes on $2.3B for Biden's green school buses -- threatening Hochul's EV mandate | New York Post

The Cost Gap Is No Longer Debatable

One of the first questions districts must ask is simple: what is the actual cost difference between what we buy today and what we are being told to buy tomorrow?

According to the New York Post, electric school buses funded through the federal Clean School Bus Program are averaging more than $318,000 per vehicle, with some New York City buses approaching $395,000 each. By comparison, many districts currently purchase diesel buses in the $90,000 to $120,000 range, depending on configuration.

However,  throughout much of Update New York the issues are framed similarly, but the costs are more problematic.  Upstate New York has more factors to consider.  Update New York has mountains, forests, significant snow belts, lakes of all sizes and configurations, big and small rivers, long winding roads, places with no or poor cell service, high winds, long cold winters and isolated populations with  multiple hamlets, villages, and clusters of communities far from each other.  

Driving through and maintaining a reliable transportation service to children with these considerations is a complicated and expensive task to begin with.  Although some Update New York school districts have above average property and income wealth that could, in part, suggest that fiscal capacity is not an extensive issue, they are small in number.  By far the vast majority of Update school districts truly lack the property values, resident income capacities or political will to support the cost consideration for the mandated transition to Zero-Emission buses.   With current escalating costs, the presence of an artificial tax cap, the current economic conditions can be characterized as an “affordability” issue as school district budgets experience increasingly strained expenses, from cost escalations and competition for teachers and support staff, health insurance, educationally related expenses, and other pressing fiscal issues.

Upstate school districts need all sizes of buses and many of them big buses that cost at least $170,000 each if they are diesel. They last mostly between 5 to 10 years not depending on the miles traveled but also based on wear and tear from the climate and topography. By comparison, a single large Zero-Emission Bus costs around $400,000.  Every study I’ve seen suggests that battery life is 7 years and they will not function nearly as well or as long in the climate and topography of Upstate New York as their diesel counterparts.

Those differences totally reshape every bus replacement plan in Upstate New York.  The school districts I have conferred with have no solid financial plan, idea, or enthusiasm to hop into a state mandate that is clearly not well thought out, funded or supported and in the view of some, would threaten support and continuity of their core mission to provide a robust educational program for the children of their school district.

Fiscal Scenario #1: A Typical Replacement Cycle

Consider a mid-sized district that replaces two buses per year, paying cash based on the New York Post proposition:

• Diesel model: 2 buses × $110,000 = $220,000 per year
• Electric model: 2 buses × $325,000 = $650,000 per year

In the New York Post proposition  that is an additional $430,000 annually, before accounting for chargers, electrical upgrades, or training.

Consider a large-sized (square miles and topography) district that replaces two buses per year, paying cash based on the Upstate New York Parameters:

• Diesel model: 2 buses × $170,000 = $340,000 per year
• Electric model: 2 buses × $400,000 = $800,000 per year

In Upstate New York proposition  that is an additional $460,000 annually, before accounting for chargers, electrical upgrades, or training.

I’ve got to believe that if school districts that currently buy buses in cash throughout New York State attempt to maintain a cash purchase regime into the future, it will draw down on cash reserves or  capital reserves and exhaust them or create an added expense to the general fund budget that would  require a significant reallocation of expenses and district priorities over time. 

For districts using Bond Anticipation Notes or Serial Bonds, the impact compounds. Hypothetical Examples:

Higher principal means higher interest costs, longer amortization periods, and greater pressure on debt limits that voters must approve.  

For instance, amortizing under current conditions a $170,000 bus over five years would obviously provide savings over the amortization of a $400,000 bus for eight years. Undoubtedly, no amount of additional funding proposed by the Governor would be enough to assuage school districts from the fiscal realities of the Zero-Emission bus cost issues.

Additionally, there will be a significant difference in costs to New York State government in the form of Transportation Aid as well.  I have not seen any estimates on the additional amount of Transportation Aid that would need to be provided to school districts for the movement from diesel to electric buses.  I have got to believe, taken together, it will be considerable. I am unsure if the additional Transportation Aid costs associated with this mandated transition have been factored into current estimates of future state budgets not only for school districts but also for the investment needed in power infrastructure by New York State. 

Infrastructure: The Quiet Budget Buster

The bus is only part of the cost.  Electric fleets require charging stations, upgraded electrical service, potential transformer replacements, and in many cases, significant modifications to transportation facilities. Older bus garages were not designed for battery storage, high-voltage systems, or modern fire suppression standards.

The New York Post cites estimates placing the total cost of replacing New York’s roughly 45,000 diesel buses at more than $11 billion — and that figure does not include infrastructure or facility upgrades.  I am thinking closer to $15 billion for just the buses  (spare buses needed for special routes  (special needs students transportation concerns and the need to make longer routes shorter), athletics and DOT inspection purposes are an additional thought.)

Fiscal Scenario #2: Facility Conversion

The New York Post  provides a conservative example for a district converting its transportation facility:

• Electrical service upgrade: $750,000
• Chargers (10–15 buses): $500,000–$900,000
• Fire safety and code compliance: $250,000.
• Design, contingencies, escalation: $300,000.

Total potential capital cost: $1.8–$2.2 million

That is a separate capital project — with its own debt, voter approval, and aid assumptions.

While there is no “aid ceiling “ on aid eligible capital project costs for transportation facilities, there are complex matters with a full-on electrical upgrade to a facility. 

Part of the problem is access to electrical power, hampered on occasion, by distance, terrain, subsoil, or overhead transmission line issues.  Add to this the inconvenience of the timing of the transformation, the length of time of the work, hindered by the length of time to secure the necessary building materials.  Further, there can be other obstacles to efficiency and costs- namely the availability of a competent workforce, reasonable bids, and the phasing of the work.   This may be exacerbated by the possible reality that all of this type of work would need to be started, financed and completed in a relatively brief period of time, and more or less, at the same time, throughout New York State. Aside from the ‘normal” capital project problems created from “unknowns” throughout every project, issues related to the construction itself provide and additional threat.

Reliability Isn’t a Talking Point — It’s a Safety Issue

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of recent reporting involves performance in winter conditions.

The New York Post detailed complaints from Erie County parents whose children were reportedly cold on electric buses that struggled to maintain heat, and instances where buses broke down mid-route, leaving students waiting in freezing temperatures.  These are not edge cases. New York is a cold-weather state. Routes are long, rural, and often involve hills, poor road conditions, and limited access to backup vehicles.  If a bus fails, the question isn’t ideology — it’s how do we get kids to school and  home safely?

Manufacturing and Delivery Risk

Another issue that deserves more attention is supply. Has anyone asked for a guarantee that the industry can deliver 45,000 buses to school districts by 2035?  The Post reports that dozens of school districts nationwide are still waiting for buses that were funded years ago. The EPA’s own inspector general found vulnerabilities to waste and abuse, including payments made before buses were delivered — or, in some cases, before manufacturers proved they could deliver at all.

New York school districts are being asked to bet their transportation systems on a manufacturing pipeline that has not yet demonstrated the capacity to meet demand to scale.

Questions That Still Don’t Have Answers

In earlier columns, I laid out a lengthy list of questions school districts need answered. They still apply — and in light of new data, they matter even more:

• Will New York State have the financial resources in Building Aid to cover transportation facility conversions?

• Will New York State have the financial resources in Transportation Aid cover the purchase of Zero-emission buses with greater cost and  amortization schedules?

• Will the electric grid support mass overnight charging statewide?

• Will training for mechanics, drivers, and first responders be affordably funded by school districts?

• Will smaller and rural districts receive flexibility or waivers for as long as they are needed?

• What do we do with a mandate the requires voter approval to buy Zero-Emission buses and a mandate requiring us to buy Zero-Emission buses simultaneously?

• Will grants today cause a financial jolt tomorrow?

To date, many of these questions remain unanswered or vaguely addressed.

A Mandate Without Margin for Error

Even supporters of electrification should acknowledge a basic truth: there is no margin for error in student transportation. Encourage those ready and able to make the transition to move accordingly.

As Assemblyman Robert Smullen told the New York Post, districts are being forced to divert money from classrooms into transportation systems that add nothing directly to instruction — while assuming risks they did not create.

Good policy is phased and  adapts - because hopefully, state government listens and reevaluates previous choices. The mandate to transition to Zero-Emission buses is clearly aspirational, and currently unrealistic. Right now, many school districts are saying the same thing:

1. We are planning but there is no discernible political or fiscal path for almost all of us. We are wasting hard earned political support and political capital from our school district residents and we just don’t have the money now or in the near future.

• Waivers are not the answer. Using 4 years of waivers, if the mandate remains, would offer school districts less time (4 years only compared to 8 years without waivers) to transition their fleets to Zero-Emission buses.

• We are not ready — and neither is the system.

• But unambiguously, the prudent thing to do is to move this mandate back a decade immediately.  

Coupled with topographic and climate issues, look at these data sets and think practicality:

The disappointment about this issue is palatable; the state has not only failed to realistically recognize the dilemma here, but they have not provided appropriate relief either. The remedy is obvious.

We are watching and we are nervous....

Rick 

It was two minutes to showtime, and the Dr. Weeks 5th graders sitting at the anchor desk were reviewing their scripts. At promptly 9:35 am, the camera in front of them would turn on, broadcasting their makeshift studio to the entire school on a live Microsoft Teams video.

“Good morning, Dr. Weeks! My name is Anoki.”

The two student news anchors led the students through the Pledge of Allegiance, the day’s lunch menu, an attendance reminder, interesting holidays (this particular day was National Chocolate Covered Pretzel Day), and the school affirmation. A classmate sat nearby off screen, keeping an eye on the Teams chat to jump in with any breaking news – forgotten birthdays, last minute events, and the like.

“I am optimistic that this experience will help encourage our students to attend school every day,” Ms. Blansett said. “Students who want to be broadcasters have to show that they are serious about school and have good attendance. I am hopeful that students will become better public speakers and improve their reading abilities.”

The students also work together to make decisions about who has what role behind the scenes; and the experienced members of the news crew work to “train” new students joining the team each week.

5th grader Safi Salehe started working with the media group last year when her best friend signed up. She enjoyed it so much that she has stayed an active participant this year.

“I like starting the day here and putting together the news for the day,” Safi shared. “My friends think it’s cool that I get to be on the screen every day!”

Philip Faraja was preparing for his first-ever role as news anchor.

“I wanted to be part of this group because I like to tell people about important stuff happening in our school and I want people to know me,” he explained. “My sisters and brothers will see me doing this and think it’s so cool. It makes me want to have good attendance so I can be part of the show!”

We’re proud of these students for being leaders in their building!

Nearly 18,000 schools were ranked on six factors based on their performance on state assessments and how well they prepare students for college.

It's never too late to start thinking about the college journey. Try College Compass today to get a head start, and easily find
the right fit for your student.

Read More