Marlboro Central School District board adopts $67.13 million budget, trustees urge voters to turn out

The Marlboro Central School District Board of Education on April 24 approved a $67,127,303 budget for the 2025–26 school year, a 2.34% increase from the prior year, after a presentation from district staff about revenue uncertainties tied to a large pilot program moving onto the property tax rolls.

The board’s vote followed a detailed presentation by Emerson Segarra, the district presenter, who described the budget’s assumptions, the main cost drivers and contingency scenarios. "The budget that we're presenting to the board today is basically $67,127,303," Segarra said, noting the increase is driven primarily by salaries and benefits and by health-care premium growth.

Why it matters: Board members repeatedly emphasized that while the district’s proposed tax levy cap could reach as high as 9.1% under the state formula, the district is not proposing the maximum and -- because of the shift of a major pilot assessment into the tax rolls -- many taxpayers will see little or no change, depending on their town’s final assessments. Segarra said roughly half of an example 9% levy change would reflect the pilot-to-tax-rolls transition, not a direct increase in the district’s portion of the levy.

Segarra told trustees the budget was prepared conservatively because the state budget had not been finalized and the final assessment for the large pilot property, identified in the presentation as the Danskammer plan, remained subject to a likely challenge. "By the time that they get their assessment and that assessment gets challenged, we will have to have a budget vote," Segarra said, adding that the district’s projections assume the pilot’s previous contribution (about $1.5 million) will shift into the tax rolls under current assessments and could represent roughly $3 million in increased assessed value to the district.

Board discussion focused on contingency planning and messaging. Segarra and other trustees warned that if voters reject the proposed spending plan and the district must adopt a legally required contingency budget, state rules would eliminate certain expenditures (including many equipment purchases) and restrict raises for nonunion staff, yielding roughly $137,000 of automatic mandated cuts. The district would still face an estimated program gap of about $3 million and would need to consider deeper staffing and program reductions or draw on reserves. Segarra said using reserves to cover the gap could consume roughly two-thirds of available reserves in a single year.

Trustees stressed public outreach. Board member Joanne Nennini asked staff to start posting vote reminders and banners earlier to boost turnout; other trustees urged clear public messaging that a 9% levy figure in district materials does not mean a 9% increase in every taxpayer’s bill. The district said it had engaged a third‑party financial reviewer to corroborate the budget numbers and posted budget materials on the district website (marlboroughschools.org).

Votes at a glance - 2025–26 budget (Resolution to adopt proposed 2025–26 budget in the amount of $67,127,303): Mover: Tony Mullen; Second: Faith Benninger. Vote: 7–0 (all present board members voted yes). Outcome: approved. - Property tax report card for 2025–26: Vote: 7–0 yes. Outcome: approved. - Consent agenda (contracts, personnel recommendations, minutes, LearnWell contract, Dr. Richard Hand contract, Chin Children’s neuropsychological services, TIPs resolution, January 2025 financial reports, CSE/CPSE reports): Mover: Joanne Nennini; Second: James Kuha. Vote: 7–0 yes. Outcome: approved. - OU BOCES administrative budget for 2025–26 ($9,638,064): Vote: 7–0 yes. Outcome: approved. - OU BOCES candidate slate (William Boss, David Eaton, Edwin Estrada): Vote: 7–0 yes. Outcome: approved.

What the board recorded as next steps: trustees set a "meet the candidates" night for May 8 and reiterated that if the budget were defeated they could either re-submit the same budget or revise it once under the current rules; they also described a tight August timeline for finalizing assessments should the large pilot’s appraisal be resolved before tax bills are issued. Segarra warned that unresolved assessments would trigger tax‑certiorari and potential refunds but said the district’s approach was intentionally conservative to avoid surprises.

The board’s action keeps current programs and staffing intact for 2025–26, according to Segarra. He and other trustees repeatedly urged residents to review the posted materials and participate in the vote, noting historically several hundred voters regularly oppose budgets and that turnout influences outcomes.

The board adjourned to executive session after remaining agenda items and public comment.