The next Board of Education meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25 at 7:00 p.m. in the Red Mill Elementary School cafeteria.

Items on the agenda include:

• 2026-27 Preliminary Tax Cap Calculation
• Assemblymember John McDonald III
• UPK Presentation
• Team Room Presentation
• 2026-27 School Calendar
• Appointment of Instructional and Non-Instructional Staff

The public may attend the meeting in person or watch the live stream at www.egcsd.org.

View Agenda

Synopsis of February 25 Board of Education Meeting

Due to unforeseen technical difficulties, there is no video recording available of the Board of Education meeting that took place on Wednesday, February 25 at Red Mill Elementary School. To ensure our community remains informed, we have provided a synopsis of the meeting below. It includes a topic-by-topic summary of the discussions and updates. If you would like a full transcript of the meeting, please contact the District Clerk at 518-207-2535.

The formal meeting minutes are currently being drafted. They will be posted to the website as soon as they are officially approved by the Board at their next scheduled meeting.

Meeting Called to Order

The Board of Education meeting opened at 6:40 p.m. in the Red Mill cafeteria with Board President Kim Turner presiding. The meeting went into a brief recess so two Red Mill 5th graders Owen Schultz and Nora Hansen, accompanied by Principal Helen Squillace, could lead the board members on a tour of the school.

At 7:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the cafeteria.

Approval of Draft Minutes – February 11, 2026

The minutes from the February 11, 2026 board meeting were approved.

Public Forum #1

East Greenbush Teachers Association President Dan Wagner addressed the board, acknowledging their dedication. He stated that over the past five years, decisions to remain at or below the tax cap have resulted in the loss of teachers, assistants, and psychologists, primarily through attrition. The EGTA believes that staff reductions gradually erode the level of support for students, noting that students feel the impact through increased class sizes and reduced individual attention.

Mr. Wagner pointed out that reductions made for short-term savings can create new costs later, citing the need to hire an outside contractor for the CTAEP program after a school psychologist position was eliminated. Although grateful for the community’s support in exceeding the tax cap last year, the EGTA requested that the board prioritize stability and maintenance in the upcoming budget season, rather than expansion, to protect essential people and programs.

Preliminary Tax Cap Calculation and Fund Balance Projection

The meeting moved to reports, beginning with the 2026-27 preliminary tax cap calculation and the 2025-26 fund balance projection. Director of Business and Finance Jennifer Mulligan confirmed that the timing of the delivery of this report aligns with the adopted budget calendar and will provide components of the budget development process for the 2026-27 fiscal year. The fund balance projection will help determine if the district is headed toward a surplus or deficit, which historically impacts the budget as fund balance has been used as a revenue source.

• Understanding the Property Tax Levy Cap: Mrs. Mulligan explained that the property tax levy cap is a state-mandated, complicated eight-step formula that is rarely a fixed 2%. The formula determines whether a simple majority (at or below the cap) or a supermajority (over the cap) is needed for the budget vote. Factors include the inflation factor, which is capped at 2%, and the tax base growth factor, which relates to additional physical construction within the district.
• Inflation Factor and Historical Data: Historical data from the Office of the State Controller shows that even when inflation exceeds 2%, the allowable levy growth factor for inflation is capped at 2%, as seen in the 2026-27 inflation factor of 2.63%. However, when inflation is below 2%, the growth factor is limited to the current Consumer Price Index (CPI), such as the 1.23% factor in 2021-22.
• Preliminary Tax Levy Cap Calculation Details: The preliminary tax levy cap calculation, required to be filed by March 1st, utilizes factors like the tax-based growth factor, which is set by the New York State Department of Tax and Finance. For East Greenbush, the tax-based growth factor will allow the levy to increase by an additional $173,098 for the upcoming fiscal year.
• Prior Year Tax Levy and Pilot Changes: The calculation starts with the prior year’s tax levy, which was approved by a supermajority. Changes in Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) resulted in a net decrease, necessitating the ability to levy an additional $382,000 to support the decrease in pilot revenue. The allowable levy growth factor (2% inflation cap) is providing a significant increase of $1,308,751 to be levied, equivalent to a 2.12% levy increase.
• Capital Tax Levy Exclusion and Tax Neutrality: The Capital Tax Levy Exclusion relates to voter-approved debt for capital projects, ensuring regular programming is not adversely affected. The 2024 capital project is tax neutral because the change in net building aid difference is zero, meaning the annual amount reported in the levy remains $2.3 million with no impact on the tax levy. Other components included in this exclusion are bus purchases, which are fully supported by transportation aid and reserves, and costs from the Questar III BOCES rent and capital budget, which is impacting the cap by an additional $17,933 in capital needs.
• Maximum Levy Limit and Budget Flexibility: The final tax levy limit, including exclusions for 2026-27, represents an increase of $1,881,783 or a 3.04% tax levy increase. While the $1.8 million increase provides additional support to the overall general fund budget, the resources are not specifically dedicated to a single purpose or expense.
• Impact of Debt Service and Reserves: The relationships within the budget mean that changes in the capital tax levy exclusion relate to specific line items, such as an anticipated increase of $481,489 in debt service, which will be offset by an increase in building aid due to the new capital project. These debt service and building aid estimates are expected to be stable.
• Capital Outlay Project Opportunity: The board is considering including a Capital Outlay Project in this year’s budget, which allows for one project within a $100,000 expenditure limit. If funded, this project moves to the exclusion side of the formula, increasing the exclusion and therefore increasing the tax levy cap. The outlay project would allow the district to be fully reimbursed for the aid in the subsequent year, which is a win-win for addressing smaller items.
• Strategic Funding and Maximizing Aid: The capital outlay project recommendation is to look at repurposing existing transfers, such as the one previously set up for the school lunch fund that is no longer needed, rather than adding a brand new item to the budget to fund the capital outlay project. The board needs to make a decision soon to allow for preparation, including a SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) process and disclosure in the newsletter, although they only need a concept for the project, not a specific detailed plan at this stage.
• Constraints of the Capital Outlay Project: The capital outlay project is limited to $100,000; if the work exceeds this amount, the aid is drawn over 15 years instead of immediate reimbursement the following year. The opportunity is annual, and many districts use it as part of their budget process to address capital needs that cannot wait for the next major capital project. Reimbursement is based on the building aid ratio, currently 72.1%, and districts must be strategic in project selection to maximize this aid.
• Tax Levy Cap and Project Funding: It was confirmed the district’s net cost for the capital outlay project would approximate $28,000 based on the current aid ratio of 72.1%. The district will need to investigate whether the $100,000 threshold for the single project can be an aggregate of several projects. The board will need to take action towards the end of March, coinciding with the completion of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) process and budget approval.
• Recent Tax Cap and Levy History: Historical data indicates that from 2016-17 through 2020-21, the average tax cap was 3.64%, and the average tax levy was 3.02%. In the next five-year block from 2021-22 through 2025-26, the average tax cap was 2.78%, and the average tax levy increase was 1.17%. Preliminary calculations for the 2026-27 tax cap are set at 3.04%, though the actual tax levy for that year is yet to be determined. Periods of lower tax levies were linked to receiving federal COVID funds and the full funding of foundation aid.
• Inflation and Community Pressure: The district observed substantial inflation right after the period of lower tax levies, with actual inflation at 8% in one year (2023-24) and 4.12% the following year (2024-25). There is significant community pressure regarding tax increases, even though rates were kept very low during times when more funding was available. The discussion on the tax levy cap calculation for 2026-27 concluded, shifting focus to the current 2025-26 fiscal year.
• Definition of Fund Balance: Fund balance is defined as the accumulation of annual surpluses (when revenues exceed expenditures) or reduction by deficits (when expenditures exceed revenues). It serves as the district’s savings account, providing financial stability, risk management, and flexibility to adapt. Maintaining an adequate fund balance is important for long-term planning, infrastructure maintenance, bond rating, and fiscal stress score.
• Revenue and Expenditure Projections for 2025-26: Revenues, particularly the tax levy and state aid, are generally stable at the current time in the fiscal year, though final state aid figures could continue to change. While investment earnings and Medicaid revenues offer some variables on the revenue side, the largest, more predictable components of the budget are salaries and employee benefits. Fluctuations in other expenditures often stem from changes in special education costs or unpredictable needs across district programs, departments, and facilities.
• Projected 2025-26 Deficit and Fund Balance Impact: The district anticipates an overall $3.7 million deficit at the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year, which is a structural concern, as the deficit related to direct operations is projected to be $4.168 million. This deficit will draw down on savings, decreasing the unassigned fund balance by $1.9 million, which would bring it below the regulated 4% limitation. Deficit spending is planned to also impact the Employee Retirement Reserve, Teachers Retirement Reserve, and the Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve (EBALR).
• Operating Deficit and Financial Trend: The current budget was constructed with the knowledge that expenditures ($115.2 million) exceeded projected revenue ($109.9 million), requiring the use of savings to close the gap. The fundamental concern is that the district is starting a trend of having more money going out than coming in, which is not sustainable over several years despite currently having available cash in reserves. Though there is an operating deficit, one speaker noted that the district is trending positively because the projected expenditure increase for 2025-26 ($3 million) is lower than the increase between 2023-24 and 2024-25 ($5.5 million). (Post meeting clarification: The decreased spending is primarily due to appropriating the capital reserve fund by approximately $1.7 million for the capital project in 2024-25, which caused a one-time increase in expenditures in that year not related to operations.)
• Reserve Utilization and Management: Reserve funds, such as the Teachers Retirement Reserve (TRS) and Employee Retirement System Reserve (ERS), are set aside for specific purposes like paying contributions to retirement systems or managing unexpected large increases in those expenditures. The Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve (EBALR) is used specifically for retirement incentives, paying accrued benefit time in accordance with employment agreements. It is important to utilize reserves strategically for one-time expenditures, monitor appropriate reserve levels, and be mindful that some funds, like capital reserves, require voter approval for spending.
• Fiscal Health Monitoring: The total fund balance is anticipated to decrease from $29.1 million to $25.4 million due to the projected $3.71 million deficit. This decline is being monitored closely because it could affect the district’s bond rating, which is currently Aa3, with the available fund balance ratio sitting near the bottom of the desired range. A decrease could negatively impact the district’s borrowing cost. The district is also cognizant of the need to manage the fiscal stress score metrics established by the New York State Office of the State Controller, which evaluate factors like recurring operating deficits and fund balance declines.
• Proactive Financial Strategy: The core proactive strategies for financial stability include closely evaluating the reduction in fund balance appropriation for the 2026-27 budget and aligning reoccurring operating revenues with reoccurring operating expenditures. It is critical to preserve the unassigned fund balance at the 4% level. If the current rate of utilization continues, the ERS and TRS reserves could be depleted within a couple of years.

Assemblyman McDonald’s Budget Update

Assemblyman John McDonald provided an update on the state budget process, noting that the Governor recently introduced 30-day amendments, but there were few changes to the education side. East Greenbush’s foundation aid is set to increase by just over $1 million, representing a 4.1% increase over last year’s formula, which is significantly better than the 1% floor increase many other districts are receiving.

• Foundation Aid and UPK Formula Complexity: The foundation aid formula is complex and looks at factors such as student growth and need, acknowledging the different types of poverty present in the suburban-rural district. Assemblyman McDonald confirmed the Governor’s proposal to increase the UPK reimbursement level to $10,000 per child per seat, which represents a $4,600 variance to the benefit of the district. This increase aims to address rising costs, such as educator salaries, health insurance, and energy prices, that have historically not been reflected in the fixed price per seat.
• Foundation Aid and Education Funding Outlook: Assemblyman McDonald reported that the foundation aid increase is positive, along with a seat increase, and that education funding is never cut by the legislature, stating it will either hold flat or improve. They are advocating for the foundation aid to increase for hold harmless districts from the minimum 1% to 2%. McDonald also noted that a large driver for aid, besides need, is student enrollment, which is declining in the Northeast and throughout the country, suggesting a potential future “narrowing of the gap” in funding.
• Funding for Students with Disabilities (FAPE): There is a current legislative push to extend funding coverage for students with disabilities (referred to as FPAP or FAPE 22) through age 21 until they turn 22, which Assemblyman McDonald supports. They acknowledged that the governor did not initially include this, and the legislature needs to quantify the required resources for this extension. The legislature was thanked for acknowledging the FAPE 22 issue, which addresses a gap in reimbursement for special education services.
• Federal Budget Cuts Impact: Assemblyman McDonald noted that the current budget has minimal overall growth, with growth primarily in education and healthcare, but the state is operating with a $10 billion cut from the federal government, primarily impacting states like New York that prioritize health care and education. They also mentioned that over 60% of the state’s personal income tax revenue comes from New York City and Wall Street, making the state dependent on their success.
• Non-Education Legislative Priorities: The current budget is not loaded with language issues that typically slow down the process, but two major issues remain: reforming the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to support housing development, and reducing fraud and abuse in the auto insurance industry. These priorities aim to make New York more affordable, and Assemblyman McDonald supports both.

Universal Pre-K (UPK) Presentation

Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Lisa Mahar led a presentation to the board regarding Universal Pre-K.

• UPK Enrollment and Capacity: Enrollment data shows that the program is meeting the community’s needs, as the 10 current sites accommodate 165 students, which is near the roughly 180 families that apply. The district uses a combination of four on-site Questar 3 classes, which offer free lunch but no before/after care, and six off-site Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), many of which offer desired wraparound services. Students who decline a spot often do so because they did not get their first site choice or because the offered site lacked wraparound services.
• Lottery Results and Waitlist: Out of 182 registered children for 2025-26, 165 were enrolled, and the 17 children who declined did so for reasons such as wanting to remain at a private program or not receiving a site with wraparound services. The program has been very successful in placing students, with no children being shut out who wanted a spot until new registrants moved into the district in January. The recommendation is to maintain the current capacity of 165 students.
• UPK Curriculum and Consistency: Efforts are underway to ensure curriculum consistency across the 10 sites, with the Director having meetings and providing training for directors from the Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). All programs follow state Pre-K learning standards and use various resources, including universal screeners for progress monitoring. The first cohort of UPK students is currently in fourth grade, and the program is collecting data to monitor the success of the students as they progress through elementary school.
• UPK Budget and Funding Challenges: The UPK budget for 2025-26 is $1.3 million, funded by a combination of state aid and the general fund, as federal monies have expired. The state aid is currently $5,400 per student. A potential funding change under Governor Hochul’s proposal would increase the state aid per pupil to $10,000.
• Funding Proposal and Contract Implications: The proposal to increase UPK funding to $10,000 per seat would substantially benefit the district, but the timing is challenging for current contracts. It was tentatively suggested to run existing contracts for one more year with provisions for billing increases and then issue a new Request for Proposal (RFP) in the early fall to attract new partners and capitalize on the increased funding. The district can only claim reimbursement for what they spend, so if a CBO contract is $7,000, they would be reimbursed that amount, assuming the cost has increased from the current $5,400 rate.
• Implementation of Universal Screener: The district is utilizing the Renaissance Star universal screener, which is a computer-based test administered one-on-one three times a year to assess early literacy skills. This screener provides a baseline measure for program evaluation, ensuring consistency across all ten sites, and tracks progress monitoring to determine if New York State standards are being met.
• Kindergarten Readiness Data: Data from the universal screener indicates strong student performance, with 87% of students across all 10 sites achieving at or above the 50th percentile rank on a nationally normed reference score. A scaled score of 707 is identified as the number indicating kindergarten readiness by the end of the year. The state is now requiring districts to report on their screening and progress monitoring methods to ensure adequate academic, social, and emotional programs.
• UPK Services and Financial Planning: Related services like occupational therapy and speech therapy are being provided in Questar 3 programs, and exploration into further opportunities for integrating special education services within UPK is being considered. It was noted that the total UPK funding of $1.3 million does not currently include special education services funding. Integrating UPK services and considering consolidation with other districts could offer significant long-term capacity and infrastructure improvements, especially with the potential increase to $10,000 per pupil.
• Historical UPK Program Validation: The UPK program, which started as a pilot five years prior, was validated by the current performance data, confirming that the decision to continue and support the program with general funds and community-based partners was correct. The district is proud of the program’s success and plans to tour and ensure board members see each UPK site in the buildings this year.

Addressing Team Room Access and Equity

Following a student presentation at the last board meeting, the district is reviewing the use and access of the Columbia High School basement team room to address concerns regarding equal access and the perception of inequity among athletic teams. It was confirmed that the team room, which includes a bathroom, changing space, and film review technology, is accessible to all teams for after-school activities and can be reserved by coaches.

• Existing Meeting Spaces and Scheduling: Coaches determine their meeting locations, which often include main floor locker rooms, classrooms, the library, or the weight room. A master team room schedule will be created and shared with all coaches to ensure equal opportunity and access to reservation time, complementing existing master schedules for the gym and turf.
• Plans for Team Room and Locker Room Improvements: It was acknowledged that the perceived inequity stems partly from the team room’s space limitations and the need to store large equipment, such as football gear and expensive track and field mats. Future plans include creating more accessible spaces on the ground floor, potentially renovating areas within the main locker room to include whiteboards and seating, and cleaning out a large storage vault to move large equipment, freeing up the team room.
• Communication and Addressing Perception: The administration will be more proactive in communicating team room availability to coaches and engaging with students, particularly the senior class, to address the perception that the team room is unavailable, which has led teams to adjust their habits and use other spaces The district leadership will follow up directly with the students to provide additional insight into the changes being planned.

Review of the 2026-2027 School Calendar

The proposed 2026-27 school calendar was presented, which included improved coloring and symbols to clearly denote emergency closing days. The calendar maintains the same end date as the current year, partially by not having a two-week Christmas break.

The current schedule for professional development (PD) days includes days on Thursday, Wednesday, and Friday to promote greater engagement, balancing the desire for staff convenience with student attendance requirements. There was a discussion about the impact of full-day versus half-day PD on parents, as the state requires 180 attendance days, with four days permitted for superintendent conferences.

LED Lighting Project Update

The board received a public update on the LED lighting project, which was previously identified in the building condition survey but was not included in the last capital improvement project due to cost. The project moved forward in December 2025 after Director of Facilities Paul Bickel identified a National Grid incentive program that was about to expire. The board approved a contract with RK Lighting in January, which will survey buildings and prepare for work to begin.

• Project Scope and Financial Details: Five elementary schools were deemed eligible for the incentive program, which involves replacing the ‘guts’ of existing fixtures rather than direct fixture replacement, achieving the same outcome at a lower cost. The project is zero cost to the district, as the installer will receive payment directly from National Grid. Work is scheduled to start as early as next month and must be completed by October 31 of this year for the contract holder to receive reimbursement.
• Project Benefits and Savings: The initial estimated cost for a complete replacement project under the building condition survey was over $4 million, making the no-cost contract a significant opportunity. The district will see substantial savings in utility bills over time due to the installation of low-usage lighting. Additionally, this update method makes future repairs less expensive, as failing lights require only a bulb replacement rather than replacing the entire LED fixture.
• Columbia High School Gym Lighting: A concern was raised regarding the poor lighting at the Columbia High School gym, which was noted during a recent tour. Director of Technology Peter Goodwin confirmed that the district has a proposal from the architect to make those updates and is currently looking to finance the work through this year’s budget.

Conclusion of General Business and Approval of Consent Agenda

The meeting addressed no tabled motions or old business. A motion to approve the consent agenda was approved.

Public Forum #2

No public comments.

Move to Executive Session

The Board of Education meeting ended when a motion to move into executive session was approved to discuss the terms of a vendor contract.