Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connetquot presents proposed 2025–26 budget with tax levy increase below state '2% cap'; $551,000 shortfall remains
Summary
District finance staff presented the first public rollout of the proposed 2025–26 Connetquot Central School District budget. The administration projects a tax levy increase of about 1.34%, a roughly $551,000 gap to close, and identified health insurance, bond anticipation principal, contract transportation and retirement costs as primary drivers.
Connetquot Central School District officials presented the proposed 2025–26 budget on March 11, showing a projected tax levy increase of about 1.34% and a remaining revenue–expenditure gap of roughly $551,000.
Mr. Hauser, who led the budget presentation, said the district plans to adopt a proposed budget on April 22 and send it to a public vote on May 20, and that detailed backup will be posted on the district website. “Right now, that increase is about 1.34%,” Mr. Hauser said, noting the figure is substantially below the commonly cited 2% reference for tax-cap conversations.
Why it matters: The proposed levy increase is below the widely cited 2% figure because the tax-cap formula uses multiple components, including a CPI measure, not a flat 2% rule. Superintendent Dr. Senemore described the “2% cap” as a misperception and emphasized the district’s sensitivity to taxpayer burden.
Major cost drivers identified in the presentation: - Health insurance (including medical, vision and dental for current employees and retirees): budgeted increase about $1.4 million (roughly +4% by district estimate). - Bond anticipation note principal payment: required principal of about $1.1 million in the coming year. - Contracted transportation: projected increase roughly $537,000 if routes must be outsourced due to driver shortages (district contracts with Suffolk Transportation when necessary). - State retirement system contributions for non-instructional staff: budgeted increase about $315,000 (budgeted rate noted at around 16.5% of applicable salaries).
Mr. Hauser said the district has line-by-line budget detail available and is continuing to look for efficiencies and attrition savings to close the remaining approximately $551,000 shortfall. He emphasized enrollment changes and retirements as factors district staff will use to manage costs.
Public and board response: Board members and several speakers asked for printed copies of the budget packet and praised the district for presenting detailed line-item spreadsheets. One board member thanked staff for reducing the proposed levy from the prior year’s 3.29% to the current 1.34% figure. The district noted it continues to advocate with the state for additional aid but said it is not relying on unconfirmed increases.
Ending: The board will vote to adopt a proposed budget on April 22; the public vote is scheduled for May 20. District officials said they will continue to refine the plan and post supporting documentation online.
