GUILDERLAND — Superintendent Marie Wiles used an online survey — a first for Guilderland — to gauge public opinion as she shapes her school budget proposal, to be presented tonight.

She said she has “two big take-aways” from the 370 completed surveys. The district has roughly 30,000 residents.

Survey-takers were presented with four options in considering next year’s budget: reducing existing programs, not adding new requests by program leaders, dipping into the fund balance, and challenging the tax-levy threshold.

Wiles said the two messages were clear: “Please don’t make any more cuts in programs and services to our children,” and, “We’re not crazy about challenging the tax cap.”

Overall, only 7.3 percent favored reducing the current program and 28.4 percent want to challenge the tax cap.

State law caps the tax levy at 2 percent or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less; for next year, the cap will be close to zero. A district can spend more than that only if a supermajority, at least 60 percent, approve the spending in a public vote. Because Guilderland has not gone over the levy cap since it was enacted, it has required a simple majority of 50 percent or more to pass budgets.

Wiles said this week that the budget she has drafted does not exceed the tax cap, and therefore won’t require a supermajority for approval.

Overall on the survey, the largest percentage, 37.8, favored using the district’s fund balance, with the remaining 26.5 percent favoring no program increases.

Results were considered in three categories: from the 190 who work for the district, from the 197 who are parents of current, past, or future students; and from the 274 district residents.

Nearly half of employees favored using the fund balance; their next most popular choice was challenging the tax cap, at 30.5 percent. Only 4.2 percent wanted to make cuts to the current program.

For residents, the most popular choice, at 32.8 percent, was not adding new programs; using the fund balance, at 31.8 percent, was a close second. Just 8.4 percent chose reducing current programs.

Parents’ first choice, at 34 percent, was using the fund balance, followed by not adding more programs, at 32 percent. Just 6.6 percent wanted to cut current programs.

One survey-taker contacted The Enterprise, convinced the results presented were false, since he had filled out the survey 40 to 50 times, always selecting the option to cut programs and this was not reflected in the results. He had taken the survey each time on the same computer. Wiles told The Enterprise, “We did an analysis of IP addresses,” and only one response was counted when many came from the same Internet Protocol address.

“Everyone wants to use the fund balance,” said board member Colleen O’Connell on Tuesday after Wiles had presented the survey results to the school board. O’Connell noted that this past fall the board had been unanimous about re-establishing a healthy fund balance.

For two years in a row, the state’s comptroller had listed Guilderland as a district susceptible to fiscal stress, in large part because of its reduced fund balance.

Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders explained when the list first came out that the board had made that decision, in the midst of multi-million-dollar budget gaps to try to avoid deeper cuts without raising taxes over the state-set limit.

Guilderland this year was not on the list. The district currently has about $3.5 million in its fund balance, which is close to the 4 percent of the budget allowed by the state, Sanders said. This year’s budget totals $93.7 million.

Board member Catherine Barber said she was concerned about having school programs up to date, which she said is more important than maintaining a certain fund balance. “It’s there for the students,” she said. “We don’t want to simply maintain the status quo.”

Wiles said the question she is asking as she decides about added programs is, “Can we sustain it beyond next year?”

Board member Gloria Towle-Hilt, who was in Florida but participated in the meeting via computer hook-up, asked about ramifications of being named by the comptroller as susceptible to fiscal stress.

Sanders responded it was “an early warning system” with “no punitive measures.”

“Your name is in the newspaper,” he said.

Pressed further, Sanders said, “Our Moody’s rating went down.”

Last May, Moody’s Investors Service, a bond credit-rating business, downgraded the general obligations rating for the Guilderland Central School District from Aa3 to A1, affecting $37.7 million in debt.

That was after the state’s comptroller, for two years in a row, has labeled Guilderland as “susceptible” to stress. The district had dipped into its fund balance, or rainy-day savings, to preserve programs; then, with less cash on hand, it has borrowed money to be able to meet payroll and other expenses in case state aid was delayed.

“At the end of the day,” Sanders told the school board in February 2015 when the most recent comptroller’s report was released, “it’s been about what we need to have to insure a good educational program for children…At the end of the day, we’ve done the right thing for students.”

The ratings sheet from Moody’s said Guilderland’s rating could go up with “consecutive operating surpluses leading to restoration of reserves commensurate with higher rating categories.”

“We’re hoping with more fund balance, we’ll see that reverse,” Sanders told the school board last week. With the lower rating, he said, “We’d pay a higher interest rate over the life of a bond.”

Board President Allan Simpson said he’d like to see another survey after the superintendent presents her budget proposal on Thursday.

“This is a heavy lift,” said Wiles, of developing and then tallying and analyzing a survey. “We have many ways for people to weigh in,” she said, noting that the board’s communications committee will discuss it at its next meeting.

Survey results as well as “unedited” comments are posted on the district’s website, guilderlandschools.org, said Wiles.

A parent, Bridget Scally, spoke during the rarely used public comment session toward the end of last Tuesday’s meeting about taking the survey.

“I was frustrated as an outsider,” she said, stating that the terminology was difficult to understand.

Describing herself as a “political junkie,” she said she had only recently learned the “2-percent tax cap is not really 2 percent,” and recommended that the district explain more to residents.

She said it took her three meetings to learn that FTE stood for full-time equivalent, meaning the hours that make up a full-time job.

“We’re not here twice a month,” she told the board. “I don’t have time for that.”

She concluded, “When asking for our input, dumb it down.”

Board member Christine Hayes suggested posting a list of acronyms and their meanings on the district’s website.

“We get new ones every year,” said Wiles.

“We should use the word,” said O’Connell about board members’ speaking at televised meetings.

Towle-Hilt, who chairs the communications committee, suggested running surveys by parents before posting it. “We never thought of that,” she said.