What this means for your taxes.

Enter the market value of your home (what it would sell for, roughly) to see your school tax bill last year, what it would be if the budget passes June 16, and what it would be if the revote fails.

Putting your bill in context

Even at the proposed $11.88 per $1,000 rate, Prattsburgh remains one of the lower-tax school districts in the region. Hammondsport pays $6.89, Avoca $8.75, and Prattsburgh currently $8.81. Most other regional districts pay between $11.96 (Jasper-Troupsburg) and $20.14 (Corning-Painted Post). See the full peer comparison.

That regional position is part of why the proposed jump exists at all. Prattsburgh's tax levy stayed almost the same dollar amount from 2013-14 through 2024-25. But everything else got more expensive over those years (groceries, fuel, supplies, salaries, health insurance), so even though the levy was holding flat, the district was actually losing buying power each year. That restraint earned the district a low-tax reputation, but it also means there is no recent levy growth to compound on. The full mechanics are on the next tab.

Where the money goes, and where the gap came from.

The proposed 2026-27 budget rose only 0.75%, about a third of the rate of inflation. The story is on the revenue side: state aid is not keeping up, savings have been spent, and the local tax base is being asked to absorb the shortfall all at once.

Why the levy jumped

Over the past seven years, Prattsburgh has averaged a 1.875% annual increase in Foundation Aid, or about $101,000 per year. For 2026-27, with the state budget unsettled at the time of the original May vote, the district projected the statutory minimum of about 1.0%. After updated state aid figures arrived in late May, the projected gap narrowed, and the June 16 revote asks for about $87,000 less in local taxes than the May 19 proposal. The levy still exceeds the tax cap, which is why the 60% supermajority is required.

The district has spent down its fund balance over multiple years. The 2026-27 proposal projects the unrestricted portion (the part not already committed to a specific purpose) falling to zero. With state aid flat and savings depleted, the only remaining lever is the local property-tax levy.

For more than a decade, local school taxes stayed essentially flat. From 2013-14 through 2024-25, the district collected about $2.6 million in school taxes every year, within a few thousand dollars of that same number, year after year.

During those same years, almost everything the district pays for got more expensive: salaries, health insurance, heating, fuel, special education. To hold the line on taxes, the district leaned on state aid and drew down its savings.

Now the bill is coming due. From 2013-14 through 2025-26, the local school tax levy rose by a total of $54,042 across eleven years. The 2026-27 proposal asks for about $1 million more in a single year. That's roughly eighteen times the entire eleven-year increase, compressed into one year.

That single-year jump exceeds the state's tax cap by about $832,000. That's why the proposal needs a 60% supermajority to pass, not a simple majority.

Eleven years of total spending

The levy: a decade of restraint, then a wall

What residents actually paid per $1,000

Where the revenue comes from

Where the money goes

Compared to neighbors, Prattsburgh is a low-tax, mid-cost, mixed-performance district.

Neighboring school districts vary widely in size, spending per pupil, tax rates, and academic outcomes. Where does Prattsburgh actually sit?

Tax rate vs. the region

The peer chart above is one of the clearer arguments for the proposed levy increase. Prattsburgh has one of the lowest school tax rates in the region. Hammondsport ($6.89), Avoca ($8.75), and Prattsburgh ($8.81) are the three lowest of 15 area districts. Corning-Painted Post pays more than twice Prattsburgh's rate per $1,000.

It is also one of the clearer arguments against. Prattsburgh has been a low-tax district for a long time, and many households built their budgets around that. A 37% levy increase asks voters to absorb a major change in a single year, which is especially hard on residents with fixed or limited incomes. The board's choice was whether to phase the increase in over multiple years or absorb the supermajority hurdle in one cycle. The 2026-27 budget chose the latter.

Cost per student — two methodologies

"Cost per student" is one of the most frequently cited — and most frequently confused — school finance numbers. The figure depends on what you include in "cost" and what you include in "student."

Cost per student vs. peers

The smallest district in the comparison, Canaseraga (191 students), spends $42,303 per pupil by the district method. The largest, Arkport (421 students), spends $33,200. The pattern across the region is consistent: the smaller the district, the more it costs per student.

This isn't a measure of waste. It's a structural feature. A district has to staff a single first-grade classroom, a single chemistry teacher, and a single transportation route whether it has 200 students or 2,000. Fixed costs don't shrink linearly with enrollment.

Prattsburgh stands out for being the lowest per-pupil spender among its closest peers on both methodologies. By the NYSED methodology in particular, Prattsburgh is essentially at the NYSED statewide average of ~$26,857 and below most regional peers.

Academic performance vs. peers

Three measures matter for a district at this scale: graduation rates, grades 3-8 proficiency on state tests, and college/career readiness. Prattsburgh's pattern is consistent — strong high school outcomes, soft elementary/middle proficiency relative to NY State, and a meaningful dual-enrollment program.

4-year graduation rate

Grades 3-8 proficiency on NY State tests

The poverty-performance relationship

Prattsburgh's ~54% economically disadvantaged share is at the high end of its peer group, consistent with its 3-8 proficiency being below the regional median. This is not a defense of the test scores. It is context. Districts like Hammondsport and Alfred-Almond, with somewhat lower economic disadvantage rates and similar resources, perform notably higher; districts like Bradford perform similarly to Prattsburgh.

Regents exam results (2024-25)

Prattsburgh's high school assessment results are strong. These are end-of-course exams aligned to specific high school subjects, and across the board, Prattsburgh meets or exceeds the state average.

The district is in good NY State accountability standing — "Local Support and Improvement" — with no schools flagged for CSI, ATSI, or TSI designation. The accountability picture is not the problem driving the budget conversation. The fiscal picture is.

What happens if the budget passes, and what happens if it fails.

The June 16 revote has only two real outcomes. Both have concrete consequences for students, staff, and homeowners.

If the budget passes June 16

The Board's $12,231,018 revised budget is adopted. Total spending rises 0.75% from 2025-26. The local tax levy rises $1,006,544 (37.41%) to $3,696,805. The school tax rate rises from $8.81 to approximately $11.88 per $1,000 of full value.

What the Board considered (and rejected)

At the May 27 special meeting, the Board reviewed three scenarios before voting 4–1 to send Scenario 1 to the voters. The trade-offs were explicit, and recorded in the minutes.

If the budget fails again

The district is required by New York Education Law to adopt a contingency budget. There is no third vote. The board adopts a constrained budget directly, with the rules set by state law, not local choice.

Under contingency, total spending falls to $11,767,913 — about $463K below the proposed budget. The tax rate drops to approximately $8.64 per $1,000 because the levy is capped at the prior year's. A homeowner's bill stays nearly flat, but the school's program is materially smaller for at least one year.

The three budget components

New York requires school budgets to be reported in three components, each treated differently under contingency rules.

Why reasonable voters disagree

The most common reasons people are voting one way or the other on the June 16 revote. Most voters hold a mix of these reasons. This explainer isn't endorsing either side.

The longer conversation: reorganization

Beyond the immediate budget vote, district materials and outside reporting have raised structural options that take years rather than weeks to evaluate. The most-discussed is some form of K-6 + tuition-out reorganization, in which Prattsburgh would continue to operate elementary grades locally and pay tuition to a larger neighboring district for grades 7-12. WENY reporting after the 2025 budget cycle quoted residents discussing exactly this option.

Full district mergers are also legally available and carry state incentives. New York's reorganization framework allows merging districts to qualify for Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid and Reorganization Incentive Building Aid, along with Department of State Local Government Efficiency grants for feasibility studies. A merger or reorganization takes multiple school years to study, approve via local votes, and implement; it does not automatically follow a failed budget.

One structural fact shapes any merger math. At the June 9 presentation, district leadership noted that Avoca receives roughly $2 million more per year in Foundation Aid than Prattsburgh because the state formula remains anchored to 2008 enrollment, when Avoca had about 700 students. Avoca today enrolls about 350, similar to Prattsburgh, but the aid gap persists. Leadership also cited approximately $45 million in additional state incentive aid for a two-district merger, and on the order of $100 million for a merger involving Bath.

Separately, all New York districts are now subject to the state's regionalization framework under Part 124 of the Regents regulations, adopted December 2024. NYSED has stated it will not force mergers; districts implement only the regional activities they consent to in the final plan.

The fiscal cliff was visible from a long way off.

Small rural districts in upstate New York face real structural headwinds. But not every small district arrives at a tax-levy ask this large in a single year. The choices that compound matter. Here is a documented record of decisions, warnings, and unanswered questions.

What's beyond local control

Before assigning any local responsibility, the structural picture deserves to be stated clearly. Districts the size of Prattsburgh face genuine headwinds that no superintendent or board fully controls:

• Foundation Aid lag. The state's main operating-aid formula has grown more slowly than school costs for over a decade. Prattsburgh's 7-year average Foundation Aid increase is 1.875%; the consumer price index over the same period has risen roughly 3.75% per year on average.
• Fixed costs don't scale down. A single first-grade classroom costs the same whether 18 or 28 students sit in it. Enrollment of 337 spreads costs over fewer pupils than peer districts with 400-500.
• Special education costs are volatile. A single high-needs placement can shift a small district's budget by 1-2%. Prattsburgh's special education line rose $148K (+16%) in 2026-27.
• The end of one-time federal pandemic relief. ESSER funds masked structural revenue gaps from 2020 through 2024. They're gone now, statewide.

None of that is in dispute. The question worth asking is whether the local response to those structural pressures was timely, transparent, and proactive.

The 2020 OSC audit: a documented warning

The OSC's findings were unambiguous. Three direct quotations from the published audit:

"The Board and District officials' actions to manage financial condition were not transparent and more taxes were levied than necessary to fund operations."

"The Board appropriated fund balance totaling $1.13 million for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 but none of the money was used or needed to fund operations."

"The Board did not develop written multiyear financial and capital plans."

The audit found that for three consecutive fiscal years (2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19), the district reported surplus fund balance levels that exceeded the New York State 4% statutory limit by 11 to 15 percentage points — between $1.4M and $1.9M of accumulated surplus, depending on the year, in a district whose general fund was roughly $10M.

The audit's three recommendations were direct: (1) stop appropriating fund balance that isn't actually needed; (2) reduce surplus fund balance to legal levels in ways that benefit taxpayers; (3) develop comprehensive multiyear financial and capital plans.

District officials "generally agreed" with the audit findings and "indicated they planned to initiate corrective action." That was December 2020.

What happened next

• June 2020
  $7.5M capital project approved — "no additional tax impact"
  During the pandemic, voters approved by absentee ballot a $7.5M capital improvement project, financed through Building Aid, debt-service management, and existing capital reserve funds. District communication emphasized no local tax impact.
• December 2020
  OSC Audit 2020M-108 published
  Finds the district exceeding 4% fund balance limit by 11-15 percentage points for three years; no multiyear financial or capital plans; "more taxes were levied than necessary." District commits to corrective action.
• 2021–2024
  Fund balance drawn down to fund operations
  Over this period, the district shifts from being cited for excess fund balance to running operating deficits. Per the May 2026 budget letter: "We have continued to use our fund balance, or savings account, to meet our expenses, and we have nearly exhausted those funds."
• May 21, 2024
  $22.2M capital project approved by voters
  Bond resolution dated June 18, 2024 authorizes up to $21.2M in general obligation serial bonds (plus $1M from existing capital reserve), aggregate maximum cost $22,200,000, for renovations to the main building, auxiliary building, agricultural center, and athletic fields. 30-year period of probable usefulness. Most costs are reimbursed by Building Aid, but the district takes on long-term debt service that is now ~16% of the operating budget.
• June 19, 2024
  Superintendent's 2024-25 contract: 3.9% net salary increase
  Approved by Board motion. In the same year, teachers in the Prattsburgh Teachers' Association received a 3.9% increase under their collective bargaining agreement, contractually guaranteed by the 2022-2026 CBA. The superintendent's contract has no such guarantee: it requires only that base salary not decrease year over year. The 3.9% he received was discretionary, set by the Board in individual negotiation with him.
• November 19, 2024
  Board approves new 5-year superintendent contract
  Effective January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029. The new contract enhances several compensation terms compared with the prior contract, and (consistent with prior contracts) includes a "Survival" clause guaranteeing the superintendent's salary and benefits through the end of the contract term even if the district is dissolved, annexed, merged, or consolidated. The contract was approved before the State Comptroller's January 2025 fiscal stress designation.
• January 2025
  OSC designates Prattsburgh "susceptible to fiscal stress" — score 41.7
  For SY 2023-24, near the top of the "susceptible" range (25–44.9). OSC cites low unassigned fund balance, operating deficits, and low liquidity — exactly the conditions the 2020 audit had warned about preventing.
• May 2025
  2025-26 budget fails first vote 111–111
  Tie counts as a fail under supermajority rules. Passes on revote in June 2025 with a $20,171 levy override above the cap.
• May 19, 2026
  2026-27 budget fails 303–213
  A 40.6% levy increase falls short of the 60% supermajority — 58.7% yes. The flat levy years that earned Prattsburgh a "low tax" reputation now compound into a single-year shock that the supermajority rule blocks.
• May 27, 2026
  Board votes 4–1 to resubmit a revised budget
  At a special meeting, the Board reviews three scenarios. It chooses Scenario 1 — same $12.23M total spending, revised 37.41% levy increase reflecting updated state aid — rejecting Scenarios 2 and 3, which would have cut After-School Club and/or Athletics for larger levy reductions.
• June 9, 2026
  Public budget presentation, 6:00 p.m., Room 301
  Public budget presentation held. Notable disclosures: Pulteney's reassessment takes effect for 2026-27 (equalization rate 0.76 to 1.0); the projected $11.88 tax rate assumes roughly 2% growth in taxable property value; residents should be prepared for the 2027-28 levy to rise to the tax cap; and no sport-specific cut decisions would be made unless the district actually moves to contingency.
• June 16, 2026
  Budget revote — noon to 8:00 p.m., school cafetorium
  60% supermajority still required. If it fails again, the district moves to a contingency budget.

Questions worth asking

This explainer is not a campaign for or against the June 16 revote. The 60% supermajority threshold exists for a reason — it gives voters a real veto over outsized levy increases. The 2026-27 budget either has the support it needs or it doesn't. That's a question for voters.

But beyond the immediate vote, the OSC audit and the current budget materials give any resident a documented basis to ask the board and administration five specific questions:

1. Is there a current multiyear financial plan? If so, where is it published? If not — six years after the OSC told the district to develop one — when will one be developed, and what's the timeline? A multiyear plan published in 2021 would have shown the fund balance trajectory hitting zero around the time it actually did. Voters seeing that projection earlier could have weighed smaller phased levy increases against a single-year shock.
2. What is the projected operating impact of the $22.2M capital project through 2030? Most costs are reimbursed by Building Aid, but the local share of debt service is real and arrives in the operating budget. How is that being managed against Building Aid reimbursements that arrive on a one-year lag? Were voters in May 2024 given a clear picture of how that debt would affect future operating budgets?
3. What is the district's plan for the 2027-28 budget? If this year's levy passes, will next year's be cap-compliant, or is the structural gap larger than one cycle? Partial answer, June 9: leadership indicated the 2027-28 budget should be expected to push to the tax cap. The fuller question — whether the structural gap extends beyond two cycles — remains open.
4. What is the district's teacher staffing strategy? The 2026-27 budget reduces the Teaching account by about $150K because departing teachers have not been replaced. Is non-replacement the long-term plan, or a temporary cost-management measure? How is that being weighed against the strong high school outcomes (graduation rates, Regents results) the district reports publicly?
5. What is the district's position on reorganization studies? Administrators and board members have indicated publicly that reorganization conversations are "future talks" after the budget is resolved. A clear timeline — when will a formal feasibility study begin, who decides, what triggers it — would let the community plan rather than react.

What we used, and what we still don't know.

This explainer is a community-built transparency tool. Everything in it is traceable to a public document, a primary source, or a clearly labeled estimate. Here is where it all comes from.

Source documents

Primary district materials used to build this explainer:

• Prattsburgh CSD 2026-27 Budget Presentation, May 4, 2026
• Annual Budget Notice for the 2026-27 school year
• Prattsburgh CSD 2026-27 Revised Budget Notice, June 5, 2026 (the official revote ballot notice)
• Prattsburgh CSD Budget Re-Vote Q&A, June 5, 2026 (district response to community feedback)
• Budget with Aidability Categories (line-item budget detail)
• District Budget Comparisons sheet (peer methodology)
• School Board cover letter, May 2026
• Independent Academic Performance & Peer Comparison Research Report

Primary sources verified

• Prattsburgh CSD Annual Budget Notice, 2026-27 fiscal year. Primary source for voter eligibility ("eighteen years of age, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the Prattsburgh Central School District for at least thirty consecutive days prior to the vote"), absentee ballot procedures, ID requirements, and the May 19 vote propositions including the $1,093,325 (40.6%) levy increase and $174,289 (6.5%) statutory cap.
• Prattsburgh CSD Audited Financial Statements, fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 (Buffamante Whipple Buttafaro, P.C., independent auditor's report dated September 16, 2025). Primary source for FY24-25 actuals: total revenue $12,535,000 (property taxes 21%, state sources 61%); total expenses $13,412,000 (instruction 73%, general support 13%, transportation 9%); net position decrease of $877,000; general fund operating deficit of $318,000; general fund unassigned fund balance of $319,000 at year-end; long-term liabilities of $20,621,000; capital additions of $1,102,000 related to the 2024 school improvement project. The audit confirms the fund-balance trajectory the explainer describes.
• Prattsburgh CSD 2026-27 Budget Proposal, account-level detail (with aidability categories). Primary source for every category and number in the "Where the money goes" chart on Tab 3. Confirmed totals: 2025-26 adopted $12,139,803; 2026-27 proposed $12,231,018.
• Prattsburgh CSD Budget Code Cheat Sheet. District-published reference document that translates NY State four-digit account codes (e.g., 2110, 2810, 9060) into plain-English categories. The "Where the money goes" chart labels and the definitions callout below it use this source directly.
• Prattsburgh CSD District Budget Comparisons sheet. Six-district peer comparison (Prattsburgh, Avoca, Canaseraga, Arkport, Hammondsport, Bradford) with line-item budgets and cost-per-student calculations. Source for the peer-methodology cost-per-student figure of $30,750.23 for Prattsburgh and the regional context for cost-per-student.
• Prattsburgh CSD 2026-27 Budget Presentation (May 4, 2026, 25 slides). Source for the regional tax rate chart (slide 18 — Hammondsport $6.89 through Corning-Painted Post $20.14), tax levy history slide, foundation aid history, the township-level tax rate projections, and the "$54,042 above 2013-14 levy" framing.
• Office of the NY State Comptroller, Audit Report 2020M-108 (December 2020). Source for the OSC findings and the fund balance chart on the Accountability tab. osc.ny.gov
• New York Education Law §2023. The statutory authority governing contingency budgets. Subdivision 1 explicitly lists "expenses incurred for interschool athletics, field trips and other extracurricular activities" as ordinary contingent expenses that a contingency budget may include. Subdivisions 3 and 4 establish the only two mandatory statutory caps: the administrative-component percentage may not grow from the prior year or the defeated budget, and the tax levy may not exceed the prior year's levy (the 2011 tax cap reform, Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011). Used on the Pass / Fail tab to distinguish statutory requirements from discretionary Board policy choices in a contingency budget.
• NYSED Budgeting Handbook, "Legal Aspects of School District Budgeting" and Appendix F. The New York State Education Department's official guidance on contingency budgets, confirming that interscholastic athletics, field trips, and other extracurricular activities are ordinary contingent expenses and that the board has discretion (subject to the levy and administrative caps) to determine what constitutes a contingent expense. p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/budgeting/handbook/
• New York State School Boards Association, "A Primer on Contingency Budgets." NYSSBA's reference document listing the specific categories of expenditure that do not constitute ordinary contingent expenses — new equipment, public use of buildings and grounds (unless covered by a fee), nonessential maintenance, capital expenditures (except in an emergency), and consultant services to review district operations. nyssba.org
• OSC "School Districts in Stress" Report, FY Ending 2024 (released January 2025). Confirms Prattsburgh's fiscal stress score of 41.7 and "susceptible to fiscal stress" designation. osc.ny.gov/files/local-government/fiscal-monitoring/pdf/2024-schools-stressed.pdf
• Prattsburgh CSD Bond Resolution, June 18, 2024. Source for the $22.2M capital project authorization (up to $21.2M in serial bonds, plus $1M from capital reserve). Voters approved on May 21, 2024.
• Prattsburgh CSD Board Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2024. Source for the 2024-25 superintendent's contract net salary increase of 3.9%.
• Prattsburgh CSD Superintendent Contract, 2020-2024 term (effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024; PDF via SeeThroughNY). Establishes the "Compensation" floor language requiring that base salary not decrease year over year, but with no specified annual increase, each year's salary determined by Board negotiation no later than March 1. Sick-day payout at termination set at $30 per day; over-cap stipend at $30 per day. No vacation buyback. Includes Mutual Referral, Disability, Survival, and Termination and Death clauses.
• Prattsburgh CSD Superintendent Contract, 2025-2029 term (approved by Board November 19, 2024, effective January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029; PDF via SeeThroughNY). Retains the year-over-year no-decrease floor. Enhances sick-day payout at termination (to 1/480th of annual salary per day), increases the over-cap sick-day stipend (to $80 per day), and adds a new vacation buyback clause (up to 5 days per year at 1/240th of annual salary). The Mutual Referral, Disability, Survival, and Termination and Death clauses are present in both this and the prior contract.
• Prattsburgh Teachers' Association Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2022-2026 term (PDF via SeeThroughNY). The collective bargaining agreement between the District and the teachers' bargaining unit. Article 4 (Salary) sets the contractually guaranteed annual base salary increases: 3.95% for 2022-23 and 2023-24, and 3.9% for 2024-25 and 2025-26. Step 1 (new hires) and steps at the top of the scale are governed by separate provisions. Primary source for the contractual-vs-discretionary distinction described in the Accountability tab's June 19, 2024 timeline entry.
• Prattsburgh CSD Board of Education Special Meeting Minutes, May 27, 2026. Primary source for the 4–1 vote to put the revised budget on the June 16 ballot, the three scenarios considered, and the public meeting dates (June 9 presentation, June 16 revote). The minutes document Scenario 1 (chosen): $12,231,018 total spending with a $1,006,544 (37.41%) levy increase at a projected $11.88 per $1,000.
• Prattsburgh CSD 2026-27 Revised Budget Notice, June 5, 2026. The official revote ballot notice issued for the June 16 vote. Confirms the $12,231,018 total budget (0.75% increase), the $3,696,805 proposed tax levy ($1,006,544 / 37.41% increase, with $832,255 above the tax cap requiring 60% supermajority), and the $2,690,261 contingency levy if the revote fails. Confirms the official tax-bill scenarios used to validate this explainer's tax calculator (a $100,000 assessed-value home: $599.96 current, $842.29 proposed).
• Prattsburgh CSD Budget Re-Vote Q&A, June 5, 2026. District response to community questions following the May 19 budget defeat. Primary source for the 11-program breakdown of After-School Club and ~230 participation slots; the district's framing of marching band as an "extra" subject to evaluation under contingency review; the 2026-27 funding model change for CCC/ACE college credits (75% BOCES aid / 25% family contribution, ~$81 per credit); confirmation that UPK is grant-funded and FFA is self-funded (both unaffected by the vote); the approximately $542,723 in federal categorical grant revenue for 2025-26; the district's reference to the NYSPHSAA transfer rule for student-athletes considering participation at other districts; and the district's contingency framing distinguishing Board policy choices from statutory restrictions.
• Prattsburgh CSD Public Budget Presentation, June 9, 2026. Source for the Pulteney reassessment (equalization rate 0.76 to 1.0, effective 2026-27), the ~2% taxable-value growth assumption behind the projected $11.88 rate, the 2027-28 tax-cap outlook, the single-teacher staffing picture in core subject areas, the Avoca Foundation Aid comparison, the reorganization incentive aid estimates, and the district's statements on athletics decision-making under contingency. Statements attributed to the June 9 presentation are based on notes taken in person at the meeting by this explainer's author. They are paraphrases, not exact quotations, and figures may be approximations. They will be checked against the district's presentation materials or official minutes when those are published.
• Prattsburgh Central School District Facebook page (facebook.com/PrattsburghVikings). Secondary source confirming the May 27 board action and the June 9 / June 16 public meeting dates.
• NYSED data.nysed.gov Financial Transparency Reports for Prattsburgh, Avoca, Arkport, Hammondsport (2023-24) and Canaseraga (2022-23). Source for NYSED operating per-pupil figures.
• News coverage: WENY News, WSKG, Spectrum Local News, Fingerlakes1.com, WETM/MyTwinTiers (May 2025 and May 2026 budget vote coverage).

Methodology and known caveats

• The September 2025 audit confirms the fund-balance trajectory. The FY24-25 audit (Buffamante Whipple Buttafaro, P.C., dated September 16, 2025) shows Prattsburgh's general fund unassigned fund balance at $319,000 as of June 30, 2025, with a $318,000 operating deficit in FY24-25 — consistent with the 2026-27 budget materials projecting unassigned fund balance falling to near zero in the coming year. The audit also documents net position decreasing $877,000 in FY24-25 (versus an increase of $579,000 in the prior year), reflecting the structural pressures discussed throughout this explainer.
• Two different 2025-26 tax levy figures appear in source documents: $2,690,261 (Annual Budget Notice — the adopted, with-override levy) and $2,670,090 (the historical levy table — the within-cap figure). The $20,171 difference reflects the small override approved on the 2025 revote. This explainer uses the $2,690,261 figure when comparing to 2026-27 because that is the actual levy collected.
• Two different "cost per student" methodologies exist, both shown in this explainer: $30,750 in the peer comparison sheet (budget minus debt service, divided by enrollment) and $26,126 in NYSED's ESSA Financial Transparency Report (excludes transportation, tuition, debt service, and "other"). Both are correct; they measure different things.
• Academic peer figures are aggregations across grades 3-8 within each district, drawn from independent research compilation of NYSED 2024-25 data. Single-grade results within any one district swing dramatically with small cohorts (12–24 students per grade). For precise district-by-district, grade-by-grade figures, see each district's profile on data.nysed.gov.
• The tax calculator uses district-wide projected tax rates and a 2% increase in district-wide property value for 2026-27 per the district's stated assumption. Actual rates vary by town based on equalization rates set annually by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance. The calculator should be used as a planning estimate, not a final bill.
• The contingency tax rate of $8.64 per $1,000 is calculated as the prior-year levy ($2,690,261) divided by the district's projected 2026-27 full property value of approximately $311.4M. That $311.4M figure is consistent with the district's stated assumption of 2% property value growth, and it back-checks correctly against the scenarios presented at the May 27 board meeting (each scenario's levy divided by the projected rate yields full values between $311.2M and $311.4M). The district has not published an official contingency rate as of this writing; if one is published it should replace this estimate.
• NYSED operating per-pupil for Canaseraga uses 2022-23 data rather than 2023-24, because 2023-24 was not yet retrievable in this build. All other peer NYSED figures are 2023-24.

What this explainer does and doesn't do

This explainer was compiled with the help of AI tools working from publicly available source documents listed on this tab. Every number in the explainer can be checked against a primary source. The maintainer is Joe Elward, a Prattsburgh resident and parent of current students — not a finance professional or auditor. Any errors are unintentional, and corrections sent to the email below will be reviewed and applied promptly.

This is not a campaign for or against the June 16 revote. It is not affiliated with the Prattsburgh CSD, the Board of Education, any candidate, any campaign, or any organized group.

Where this explainer presents the case for and against the budget, it presents both sides in the strongest version their advocates would make. Where it raises accountability questions, it draws on documented public records and frames them as questions, not accusations. Corrections remain welcome at the email below.

Spotted an error? Have a correction?

Glossary terms

Words and phrases with a dotted green underline have a definition on hover. The vocabulary of school finance — tax cap, supermajority, equalization rate, foundation aid, contingency budget — was designed for accountants and lawyers, not voters. Hover any underlined term throughout this explainer for a plain-language definition.

Change log

This explainer is updated when factual issues are identified, when sources are added, or when substantial content is added. Corrections and substantive informational changes are logged. Minor edits (typos, formatting, navigation, visual polish) are not.

June 10, 2026

• June 9 public budget presentation incorporated. The district held its public presentation on June 9. Notable disclosures added across the explainer: the projected $11.88 tax rate assumes roughly 2% growth in district taxable property value; district leadership indicated residents should be prepared for the 2027-28 levy to rise to the tax cap; no sport-specific cut decisions have been made or will be made unless the district moves to contingency, and the superintendent acknowledged that eliminating athletics would likely cause substantial student departures; and the district is at single-teacher coverage in several core areas (one high school math teacher, one confirmed science teacher, one second-grade teacher with 22 students). Statements from the presentation are based on in-person notes and are paraphrases; see the source note on this tab.
• Pulteney reassessment noted. Pulteney has completed a town-wide reassessment effective for 2026-27, moving its equalization rate from 0.76 to 1.0. The tax calculator guidance on the Your Tax Impact tab was updated accordingly.
• Reorganization context expanded. The Pass / Fail tab's reorganization section now notes the Foundation Aid disparity with Avoca (roughly $2 million more per year, anchored to 2008 enrollment of ~700 students vs. ~350 today) and the state incentive aid estimates cited at the presentation (~$45 million for a two-district merger; on the order of $100 million for a merger involving Bath).
• State aid references made consistent. Two remaining references to state aid growing "1%" (the Start Here quick version and a Levy tab chart caption) were updated to about 2%, matching the district's June 5 Q&A and the correction already applied to the voter cards.
• Election logistics updated. The June 9 presentation references were moved to past tense, and the absentee-ballot guidance now reflects that the mailed-ballot deadline has passed (in-person pickup applications are accepted through election day).