Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Tax Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Locust Valley review: tax cap, reserves and proposed capital withdrawals to fund library and cafeteria
Summary
District finance staff reviewed the property tax cap calculation, the district's reserves and fund balance, and a proposed capital-reserve withdrawal to fund next-generation library and cafeteria projects that trustees said would not raise taxes.
District finance staff presented the Board of Education with an overview of the tax-cap calculation, the district’s fund balance and reserves, and budget planning for 2025–26.
Karen Wojzewski, presenting what the board characterized as the budget presentation, explained that the district budgets 182 days (New York State requires 180) and builds two snow days into the calendar. She reviewed components of the state property tax-cap calculation—prior-year levy, tax-base growth factor, consumer price index and allowable exclusions for debt and capital—and applied those elements to Locust Valley’s figures for the 2024–25 base year.
Using the figures shown in the presentation, Wojzewski reported an estimated current-year tax-levy maximum of about $89.9 million, representing a levy increase of roughly 2.11 percent; she noted the numbers were estimates and still moving. The presentation showed the district’s total reserves and fund balance at June 30, 2024, as $25.6 million and reported the unassigned fund balance at an amount equal to 4 percent of next year’s budget, which the presenter said complies with New York State guidance.
Wojzewski also described a planned capital-reserve withdrawal to fund a next-generation library and a renovated cafeteria for middle- and high-school students; board members said the proposition would be presented to voters and that, because funding would come entirely from reserves, there would be no impact to taxpayers. The presentation included projected budget challenges: a roughly 12.5 percent enrollment decline over 10 years, inflation versus the 2 percent cap, pending collective-bargaining negotiations, potential unplanned student placements, rising transportation costs and declining interest income.
The board outlined the budget calendar and next steps: February discussions on noninstructional budget codes, March reviews of instructional budgets including special education and athletics, and a March 26 review of transportation and capital projects with a draft budget summary to follow. No formal votes or budget adoptions occurred at the meeting.
