Connetquot board presented with proposed $233M budget and a $3M gap; trustees debate reserves, programs and staffing

The Connetquot Central School District on March 25 received a detailed second draft of the proposed 2026–27 school budget from Assistant Superintendent for Business Bob Hauser, who asked the board and public to treat the numbers as a work in progress while the district closes the remaining gap before board adoption and the May 19 public vote.

Hauser reviewed the budget calendar and New York State timing, noting state aid remains uncertain until the Legislature finalizes the state budget. He explained the district’s tax‑cap calculation and said the tax‑levy ceiling displayed on the slides was $148,840,217 (a 2.15% increase). Hauser described a proposed expenditure figure that was higher than the current year and gave a draft proposed spending total in the low‑$233 million range, explaining the draft represented roughly a 1.9% increase in spending over the prior year.

The presentation identified several major upward cost drivers: added out‑of‑district placements (tuition and services), a principal increase on a $59 million bond anticipation note, higher health‑insurance costs for active employees and retirees, increases in retirement contributions (ERS and TRS), Social Security/FICA and BOCES tuition and services. Hauser summarized the district’s reserve accounts and explained constraints on their use: appropriated (unassigned) fund balance, workers’ compensation, employee‑benefit accrual (EBAR), retirement reserves and a capital reserve that requires voter approval to expend.

Hauser said projected revenues excluding the levy are down roughly $1.8 million (miscellaneous revenues and state aid components) while proposed expenditures had risen, producing a working gap he summarized on screen at about $3.0 million. He cautioned the numbers were fluid and subject to change as line items are reviewed.

Trustees and administration debated how to close the gap. Some board members emphasized continuing the line‑by‑line review of the thousand‑plus budget codes and looking for nonrecurring savings (overtime reductions, legal fees, pilot payments and other miscellaneous revenues). Others warned that relying on reserves is unsustainable: one trustee noted several reserves are projected to decline or go to zero and said “we're not going to be able to replenish” them without making hard choices.

A central point of discussion was program versus staffing: board members repeatedly stated a preference to look first for line‑item and non‑personnel savings before cutting staff, while some public commenters and one trustee said personnel costs should not be categorically off‑limits and that the board must consider cuts from multiple areas if needed.

A specific program under review was the alternative high‑school/evening program and related BOCES charges. Administrators said BOCES had rebilled and increased the expected cost of operating out‑of‑district and evening programs, which raised questions about whether to keep the alternative high school structure in place or reimagine staffing to provide services differently. Trustees stressed that any decision to alter or eliminate the alternative high‑school structure would require a clear, costed plan for the students presently served.

Board members asked about unemployment insurance and why a reserve estimate had increased (from $117,000 in an earlier year to a proposed $300,000). Hauser explained the district is self‑insured for unemployment claims and that durations and rates have changed; he said administration could explore alternative participation in pooled unemployment programs.

On routine business during the same meeting, the board approved second readings of policy 5555‑R (student records) and policy 8635E (parents’ bill of rights for student data privacy and security) by voice vote (one trustee registered a ‘no’). The board also moved consent agenda personnel items and other listed agreements; many items passed on voice votes recorded in the transcript.

Members of the public urged transparency and earlier notice of budget shortfalls; one commenter asked whether postponing the budget vote was an option and administrators said they would consult counsel about timing constraints. An operations‑unit representative urged filling two maintenance positions (groundskeeper and maintenance mechanic) to avoid higher contracted costs and to protect safety.

Hauser closed by saying the presentation and slides are posted on the district website and reiterated that the board would receive further budget revisions and another presentation before the April 21 adoption vote.

Next steps: administration and the board will continue line‑by‑line reviews of budget codes, examine programmatic alternatives for high‑cost placements and BOCES services, and return with updated numbers ahead of the April adoption deadline.