Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Connetquot presents $228.8 million draft budget; shortfall hinges on delayed state aid

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Connetquot Central School District presented a third draft of its 2025–26 general fund budget at the April 8 board meeting, proposing $228,779,052 in expenditures — a 2.79% increase — while flagging a roughly $354,310 shortfall that depends on pending New York State foundation-aid decisions.

Connetquot Central School District presented a third draft of its 2025–26 general fund budget at the board’s April 8 meeting, with proposed expenditures of $228,779,052 and a 2.79% increase in spending over the current year. Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations Robert Hauser led the presentation and told the board the district is waiting for a final state aid number that will determine whether the budget can be adopted without additional cuts or reserve draws.

Hauser said, “the proposed budget of 228,779,052 represents a 2.79 increase in expenditures,” and explained the board is scheduled to adopt a tentative budget in April and hold a hearing in May, with the final budget vote and school board election set for May 20.

The district reported a current shortfall of about $354,310 in the general fund draft. Hauser and presenters explained that the shortfall is narrowly tied to the state’s foundation-aid calculation: a 1% increase in foundation aid would be roughly $360,000 and would nearly close the gap. The district does not yet have a final state budget or state-aid notification; presenters said the legislature’s timing is uncertain and could remain unsettled through upcoming legislative breaks.

Why this matters

The draft relies on a mix of projected revenues and reserves and assumes a tax levy increase at the statutory cap. Hauser showed the estimated assessed valuation the district used — $689,114,934, the town’s October figure — and cautioned that the actual assessment roll will change this fall; reductions in assessed valuation would raise the tax rate needed to raise the same levy. As an example, Hauser’s materials showed that on a property with a $10,000 assessed value the school portion of the tax bill would be $2,114 under the proposed levy, an increase of $28.06 in that scenario if assessed values remain unchanged.

Universal Pre-K and program costs

The presentation included a detailed discussion of Universal Pre-K (UPK). The district currently operates 11 UPK sections and proposed adding two sections (to 13 total) to increase capacity from 190 to 226 students. Hauser presented the program cost math used in the draft: state UPK funding permits the district to receive up to $5,400 per UPK student; at 226 students that state aid amount would total $1,220,400. The total estimated cost to operate 13 sections was presented as $1,357,000, leaving a district responsibility of $136,800 under the program as proposed.

Administrators noted additional one-time and recurring costs that the state grant does not cover — classroom furniture and supplies for new sections, and some district-level program costs carried outside the grant. The district intends to balance those costs through existing program reserves, fund balance or, if required, a line-by-line review of expenditure codes to find savings.

Summer enrichment (BOCES)

The board heard a separate slide on the BOCES-operated summer enrichment program. According to the presentation, BOCES charges $250,000 to run the program; the district estimates parent tuition of roughly $65,000 and receives about 57.3% state aid on the program in the subsequent year. The net projected cost reported to the board was about $41,750, based on an estimate of 100 students. Board members and public speakers questioned whether the per-student cost justified the relatively small enrollment.

Board action and next steps

During the meeting the board approved routine minutes and later voted to approve a bundle of financial and personnel consent items (financial items 2–7, personnel items as listed, and consent agenda items 2–16). The motions were made and seconded and recorded as carried; the transcript does not record individual roll-call vote tallies in the public audio excerpt.

The budget team told the board they will post detailed budget pages on the district website and return with updates once the State finalizes foundation-aid numbers. Administrators also said they will track potential cuts and reserve use if state aid does not materialize as hoped.