Connetquot budget briefing: governor’s proposed 2% state aid increase offsets some costs, but tax‑cap squeeze remains

Connetquot Central School District business staff presented the second budget workshop for the 2025–26 fiscal year, outlining state aid projections, tax‑cap constraints, reserves and the district’s outstanding debt schedule.

The essentials: The governor’s executive budget proposes a 2% increase in foundation aid; the district’s current estimate shows total school aid up $2,744,000 (4.83%), driven largely by a projected $1.7 million increase in building aid. Presenters cautioned those numbers are preliminary until the state legislature finalizes the budget by March 31.

Why it matters: Even with a modest increase in projected aid, district officials said New York’s tax‑cap rules and local cost pressures — pension, health insurance and other operating costs — will limit options for revenue and may require targeted budget adjustments.

The business presentation, led in the meeting by Mr. Hauser (business office presenter), summarized the New York State Comptroller’s fiscal stress metrics and the district’s own indicators. “On a score of 0 to 100 with 100 being the worst, our district came in at 3.33 for financial items and 15 for environmental indicators,” Mr. Hauser said, reflecting relatively low fiscal stress under the comptroller’s measures.

State aid: The administration walked the board through the governor’s initial aid proposal and an itemized aid estimate across categories including foundation aid (the largest), building aid and BOCES aid. Mr. Hauser said the foundation aid component is estimated to rise 2% under the governor’s proposal, yielding roughly $700,000 more in foundation aid for the district; the larger change in the estimate is an increase in building aid tied to capital projects already expended.

Tax cap and levy growth: The district reviewed how tax‑cap calculations are formed. Two factors — a tax base growth factor (about 0.48%) and an allowable levy growth factor (capped at 2%) — determine the maximum allowable levy increase in the standard calculation. Board members and administrators noted that the 2% ceiling often does not keep pace with real inflation; Dr. Centimore and board members emphasized continued advocacy for higher foundation aid to offset the difference.

Reserves and fund balance: The presentation showed reserves and fund balance levels from recent years. Mr. Hauser said reserves declined modestly from 2023 to 2024 (about 4%) and cautioned that reserves should be replenished when possible to avoid using one‑time savings to cover recurring costs.

Debt schedule: The district presented the multi‑bond debt schedule and explained how expiring debt payments must be handled in tax‑cap calculations. Mr. Hauser noted the district plans capital borrowing strategically so the community is not penalized under the tax cap when older debt expires.

Board questions and follow up: Members asked about contingency planning for variations in state aid and potential program or staffing reductions; the administration said it reviews attrition, program needs, and reserves as part of budget development and will present specific options as figures firm up. Board members asked for comparative data with similar districts and asked to consider starting the budget process earlier in the year to spread planning time.

Next steps: Administrators will update the board after the state budget is finalized in March and return with more detailed contingency options ahead of the budget vote scheduled for May 20.