Great Neck board closes budget hearing; district highlights $289.998 million proposal and an $8.8 million capital-reserve request for athletic and facility work

The Great Neck Union Free School District Board of Education on Wednesday closed the public hearing on the 2025–26 proposed budget after a presentation from Deputy Superintendent Thomas (Tom) O'Keefe that summarized the district's spending plan and ballot propositions ahead of next Tuesday's vote.

The proposed annual budget totals $289,998,000, a 2.84% increase over the current year, with a proposed property tax levy of $244,222,000, a 3.05% increase, O'Keefe said. “The proposed budget for next year is $289,998,000 That's a 2.84% increase over the current year's budget,” he said.

Why it matters: The hearing is the final public review before voters decide on four propositions: Proposition 1 (the annual budget); Proposition 2 (authorization to expend up to $8,800,000 from the capital reserve for athletic and other capital work); Proposition 3 (library budget); and Proposition 4 (a trustee election for one seat). Voter approval is required to withdraw capital-reserve funds included in Proposition 2, and the district said there would be no additional tax levy to use those reserve funds.

Most important details: O'Keefe reviewed program, administration and capital portions of the spending plan. Instructional programs and student services comprise the largest share at approximately $227,569,000. Administration was shown at about $20,400,000. Capital items highlighted in the presentation include a nearly $11 million renovation of the auditorium at Great Neck South High School, improvements for robotics lab exhaust and dust collection, hot water storage replacements at South High and South Middle, a public-address system at JFK, a pedestrian bridge, multiple roofing repairs, two bathroom renovations, a new boiler at Cumberland and three new buses for transportation.

Proposition 2 specifics: The capital-reserve request described on the ballot would fund an extensive renovation around the North High field area — a new synthetic playing surface, drainage upgrades, grandstands, lighting, a press box, restroom renovations including sanitary upgrades (the current restrooms are on a cesspool), and track resurfacing on the Arendelle side of campus. The proposition also asks voters to authorize conversion of an old shop (referred to in the presentation as “Room 21” at North Middle School) into a multipurpose room with HVAC and audiovisual upgrades. The district emphasized that authorizing an expenditure from the capital reserve would not increase the tax levy because the funds are already held in the reserve account.

Funding and state aid: O'Keefe said final state aid was roughly $4,500 lower than earlier estimates but characterized overall state aid as approximately a 4% increase — about $640,000 — compared with the prior year. The district explained that the universal prekindergarten line item is a grant kept separate from the general fund budget. O'Keefe also said that bundling the outdoor project with an interior project (Room 21) helps the district qualify for state reimbursement; he said the state would refund roughly 10% of the bundled project costs.

Public questions and board response: Students and parents asked about parity between North and South facilities. Kevin Qiu, a sophomore and student-athlete, asked why both South and North could not receive turf simultaneously and whether there were guarantees South would ultimately receive similar improvements. “So just straight to the point, I just have questions ... Why can't both South and North receive turf at the same time?” Kevin asked.

O'Keefe responded that there are no guarantees because voters must approve propositions and the projects require state Education Department approvals. He explained site limitations at South — topography constraints, a restricted covenant on the property, and potential flooding from recharge basins — and said the most suitable South location might be a lower field near the tennis courts. Regarding sequencing and funding, O'Keefe said: “To do a project on the outside of a building to get any state aid on it, I also have to do a project on the inside of the same building ... That's why we're doing Room 21.”

Superintendent Ken Bossert added context about parity and intention, telling students that the district’s plan is to have comparable projects at both high schools if voters approve the North project: “If the voters are inclined to approve this project for North, it is our intention to have a similar project, a mirrored project for South. ... I can't say guarantee.”

Board action: The board moved and voted to close the public hearing. The motion passed on an all‑in‑favor voice vote. The budget vote and the four ballot propositions will be decided by voters at the polling sites next Tuesday; O'Keefe reminded the public that ballots list Proposition 1 (budget), Proposition 2 (capital-reserve authorization), Proposition 3 (library) and Proposition 4 (trustee election for the seat of Donna Perez).

Practical details: O'Keefe directed residents to the district website's 2025–26 budget page for the full line‑by‑line budget, the budget newsletter and a 45‑page budget book, and noted that the district produced an eight‑minute podcast version of the budget newsletter. He also reminded voters that Nassau County requires materials to be provided in English and the county’s predominant second language — the district provided both English and Spanish versions of the ballot information.

What’s next: The board will receive the results after the election; O'Keefe said planning and state approvals would follow any voter approval and that the district could stage work or combine funding sources if needed to complete South improvements in a later phase.