Board told $3.13M levy increase would keep district at tax cap; trustees demand forensic audit

Connetquot Central School District officials told the board that the proposed 2026–27 budget would increase total spending about 1.9% and raise the tax levy by 2.15 — an increase of roughly $3,132,005.21 — which the presenter said uses allowable tax-cap exclusions and keeps the district inside the controller’s tax‑cap guidance.

The district’s business presenter explained that piercing the tax cap would require a supermajority (60%) to pass the budget, whereas the current plan requires the usual simple majority of voters who turn out. He cautioned the board that state aid figures remain tentative; the governor’s proposal includes a 1% foundation‑aid increase and the district is hopeful for an additional 1% from the legislature.

Trustees pressed administration about a prior February snapshot that at one point showed a roughly $16.8 million variance between projected revenues and expenditures. Multiple trustees said the unexplained variance and ongoing line‑item questions justified an independent examination. One trustee argued, “We were 16,000,000 in the red,” and repeated requests for line‑by‑line answers led to a sustained debate about whether the figure was a temporary snapshot error or evidence of deeper accounting issues.

Several board members said a forensic audit — an outside firm that would review revenue, spending, transfers and fund balance use — was needed to provide objective answers before the upcoming budget vote. Trustees asked administration to return with cost estimates and scope options; board discussion listed rough cost expectations in the low five digits and suggested the district could absorb the expense if it resolved major questions. A motion to research the forensic audit’s cost and scope received broad support but no final contract vote during the meeting.

Administration outlined three options to bridge the current gap if the state aid outcome is less favorable: reduce non‑salary account lines, realize attrition and vacancies, or reassign and reduce staff (administrative and instructional). Enrollment projections presented at the meeting showed a small drop in sections at the elementary level (from 112 to an estimated 108 general‑education sections) and roughly 40 fewer secondary students compared with last year, which administrators said informed staffing projections.

Board members and members of the public also debated whether several new capital and IT projects (5G cellular booster, removal of old fiber, switch hardware and WAN fiber work, building flooring, and a fire‑suppression panel) should be included in a bond rather than the annual budget. Staff noted that some projects were not part of the 2022 bond narrative and therefore would not have been aidable under that bond; administration estimated state aid on certain aidable capital work at about 0.66% of cost and noted aid is typically realized after project completion.

Public commenters — including an operations‑unit representative — urged the board not to cut essential facilities and operations positions and said a forensic audit would not deliver results before the budget vote, so the board should still present a defensible budget for the coming week. Legal counsel reminded the board of its duty to present a budget and noted trustees could abstain on a vote if they lacked sufficient information but could not legally refuse to present a budget.

The board left the meeting with direction to return with clearer line‑item explanations and with a staff‑driven cost estimate and scope options for an independent forensic review. The meeting record shows multiple trustees asking administration for the answers they said were missing; no formal decision to hire a forensic auditor was taken that evening.

Next steps: trustees asked staff to produce a forensic‑audit cost estimate and to provide the detailed line‑by‑line clarifications requested by several members before the scheduled budget vote.