GUILDERLAND — Like school districts across New York, Guilderland is developing next year’s budget — proposed at $93 million — without any clear idea of what its state aid will be.

“Tonight we’re in uncharted territory,” Superintendent Marie Wiles told the 29 people who had gathered on Feb. 4 with school leaders and board members for the first forum on next year’s budget. “We’re seeking options in a sea of uncertainty.”

Although Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed a $1.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, increase in aid to schools, getting that money is contingent upon the legislature adopting the governor’s reforms — basing half of teacher and principal evaluations on student scores on state exams, lengthening teachers’ probationary period to five years, simplifying the process to remove poor teachers with tenure, allowing outside authorities to take over failing schools, and increasing the number of charter schools while holding them accountable.

At the same time, the governor’s office has not released the “aid runs” it typically gives to school districts so they can begin to calculate their spending plans. Guilderland has therefore presumed its Foundation Aid from the state will stay the same as this year and that the gap elimination adjustment will remain in place.

Since 2009, the state’s Foundation Aid to Guilderland has been flat and, since 2010, the gap elimination adjustment subtracted $19.2 million in aid. To close multi-million-dollar budget gaps, the district has cut 227.6 posts since 2009.

Next year, the gap for a proposed $93.2 million budget — up about $1.1 million from this year — will be much smaller — estimated at $130,000 — largely because the stock market has done well so that the share the district is required to contribute to the Teachers’ Retirement System is much smaller.

Those attending the Feb. 4 forum listened to a presentation on the 2015-16 budget and then broke into small groups to ask questions about a preliminary list of potential changes — both cuts and additions — for the next school year.

The forum participants visited four stations — on the elementary, middle, and high school levels, and on support services, including maintenance, transportation, and central administration. They considered a list with reductions totaling $1.5 million and additions totaling $1.2 million.

“We’re starting with the worst-case scenarios,” said Wiles of not counting on more from the state, “and hope to add things back rather than take things away.”

Rollover budget

Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders reviewed rollover budget projections, looking first at what the spending plan would total if nothing were addedd or subtracted. As is typical of school districts, the lion’s share of expenses at Guilderland next year would be for salaries, projected at $47.3 million, up about $1.1 million from this year, and benefits, estimated at $24.5 million, down about $260,000 because of the reduced contribution to the retirement system.

The costs for equipment and supplies, at about $2.4 million; for contracted services, at about $11.4 million; and for debt service, at about $7.6 million, are up just slightly from this year.

Guilderland has stayed under the state-set tax-levy limit since it was enacted; to go over that limit would require a supermajority approval rather than just over half “yes” votes.

When board members in December discussed their budget priorities, most of them said they wanted to build up the district’s fund balance, or rainy-day account. Last month, for the second year, the state’s comptroller released a report that said Guilderland was “susceptible” to fiscal stress.

The district had dipped into its fund balance in recent years to preserve programs; then, with less cash on hand, it had borrowed money to be able to meet payroll and other expenses in case state aid was delayed. The comptroller wants to see less reliance on use of fund balance and less short-term borrowing.

Sanders told the board last month, “At the end of the day, we’ve done the right thing for students.”

At the Feb. 4 forum, he presented a bar graph showing how, like stair steps, Guilderland’s fund balance had declined year by year since 2010. “We’ve lost $2.8 million in fund balance over the last five years,” said Sanders. “It helped stave off reductions.”

To stay under the levy limit, Guilderland next year can raise no more than $1,335,000 in taxes. With the district figuring on $21.9 million in state aid, $1.5 million from local sources, and $1.6 million from reserves, this leaves a gap of $130,000 from the rollover budget’s projected levy increase of $1,465,000.

Proposed changes

“The important words are ‘preliminary’ and ‘potential,’” Wiles told the group. She urged, “Don’t hold back in telling us what’s on your mind.”

The 20-page list of changes, to be posted on the district’s website, Wiles explained, include changes that have to be made because they are required, changes that ought to be made “because they are the right thing to do for kids,” and changes that district leaders would rather not make but must consider because of the revenue shortfall.

Wiles said that leaders of each department were asked to come up with cuts totaling 2 percent; this was in contrast to recent years when the Guilderland gap was larger and they were asked to come up with 5-percent across-the-board cuts.

Some of the most notable potential changes include:

— ESL staff: New requirements from the State Education Department for teaching English as a Second Language, if fully implemented would cost Guilderland over half-a-million dollars. (See related story.) Instead, the district has proposed adding one ESL teacher at the middle school for $78,000, one at the elementary level for another $78,000, and 1.2 at the high school for $93,600;

— Special education: As student needs become more complex and as Guilderland seeks to serve more students in-house, the budget proposes replacing a teacher with an instructional administrator for elementary special education at an added cost of $37,000. Also the list adds .8 of a teaching post for $62,400 at the high school, .07 at the middle school for $54,000;

— Lynnwood achievement gap: Lynnwood Elementary School houses programs for students with disabilities from throughout the district and, in addition to a significant gap in achievement between students with disabilities and general-education students at the school, data shows that general-education students at Lynnwood have lower achievement than their non-disabled peers in other Guilderland elementary schools and schools throughout the region. The proposal calls for hiring a literacy coach at Lynnwood for $78,000. Also, because of increased enrollment, the list adds nine teaching-assistant hours for $27,300 and an additional section for $78,000;

— Teaching assistants: Following a trend of reducing teaching assistants in recent years, the list proposes cutting 35 hours in kindergarten and first grade to save $178,425, five hours of elementary math help to save $15,400, seven hours in middle-school computer labs to save $33,500, cutting 6.5 hours at the middle school for duties to be assigned to paraprofessional staff, saving $32,000;

— High school electives: Potential reductions in a digital photography course and a civil engineering class would save $13,140 each; cutting electives in journalism, acting, and screenwriting would save $19,710; and cutting electives in psychology and criminal justice would also save $19,710. Additionally, cutting physical-education electives in dance styles, dance choreography, and sports medicine would save $6,570 each;

— Summer school: Since Guilderland High School changed its passing grade from 70 to 65, fewer students attend summer school. Not offering summer school would save $44,560, and Guilderland students could attend summer classes at Mohonasen;

— Wellness coordinator: The proposal would add a wellness coordinator post for $52,700, combining the duties and responsibilities of three positions (athletic trainer for $35,000, event coordinator for $4,000, and health-office clerking for  $5,000) into one, for a budget increase of $8,700;

— Assistant coaches: The proposal calls for cutting assistant coaching positions for wrestling, to save $3,990; for lacrosse, to save $8,230; for varsity soccer, to save $6,700; and for gymnastics, to save $4,540; and

—Late bus run: Currently, after-school buses run three days per week for the elementary, middle, and high schools, for students to get extra help or participate in clubs; this is the only non-mandated busing Guilderland provides. Eliminating the late runs would save $55,000.

Proposition redux

Finally, Wiles said the district is considering putting up for public vote in May a proposition similar to one that was narrowly voted down in the fall of 2013.

Guilderland put up two propositions at that time: The $17.3 million bond to upgrade the district’s seven buildings and improve security and technology passed while the $846,300 plan to renovate the high school auditorium and better light the football field was defeated. Both votes were close with 53.2 percent passing the $17.3 million bond and 50.8 percent voting “no” on the second proposition.

Board member Jennifer Charron, who had served on the facilities committee that developed the proposition, said at the time that the committee, made up of school leaders and staff as well as community members, was divided and had long talks about whether the auditorium and field lighting should be included; ultimately, a compromise was reached, letting voters decide on two separate propositions.

Wiles said this month that the lighting on the football field is “a safety issue” and that the high school auditorium is supposed to be used as teaching space. “Frankly, you can’t see to do your work there,” she said.

The May 2015 proposition would be for $1,160,000.

“The timing is right,” said Wiles since workers will already be on site for the $17.3 million project for which construction is set to start in a few months.

“A certain level of fatigue”

Guilderland’s administrative team met on Feb. 10 and Wiles reported, as she and the three assistant superintendents discussed responses from the budget forum, “The theme we heard was ‘Don’t cut anything.’ I understand that because it’s been year after year after year.” Wiles said of the response to the 20-page list, “Not a single reduction in here is palatable.”

Items that must be added, because of requirements, will be at the expense of others that are cut, Wiles said, unless more aid is forthcoming.

The constitutional deadline for the state to set its budget is April 1.

Wiles is slated to present a draft Guilderland budget on March 5. In preparation, she said, district leaders would create “tiers of action”: must do, may do, won’t do.

Wiles said she found the turnout of under 30 at the community conversation “very disappointing.” She speculated there is “a certain level of fatigue” and also said that many of the proposed cuts are not new and so may not have engendered the large turnouts of earlier years.

“A lot of the items we had talked about before but hadn’t enacted,” she said.

The school board’s communication committee is meeting Feb. 12 and will reflect on the low turnout, Wiles said. The committee will consider, “Are we ready for a new format?” she said.

On Feb. 11, Wiles emailed all district employees with the list of proposed changes, asking for input, and said that responses are coming in “at a pretty good clip.”

She also surmised the low turnout may have been because “our gap is relatively small this year — $130,000 is a fraction of what we’ve wrestled with in the past....It doesn’t feel dire.”

But, Wiles concluded, “We’re so far down...it is dire...We’re reaching into the metaphorical couch cushions, looking for change.”