School board reviews 2026–27 budget scenarios, eyes cuts and capital‑funding options
Loading...
Summary
Administrators presented three levy scenarios and a worksheet of possible cuts as the district balances facilities needs, a five‑year capital plan and recurring costs; board directed staff to model transfer‑to‑capital changes and return with targeted options.
Administrators told the Cold Spring Harbor Central School District Board of Education on April 14 that the district must choose where to trim roughly $1.4 million in discretionary spending to meet board levy targets for 2026–27.
The presenter told the board that New York State’s delay in adopting its budget complicates final revenue estimates but that the district must submit a balanced three‑part budget. "Under New York State law, we have to build a balanced budget," the presenter said, noting that salaries and benefits account for roughly 70–75% of expenditures and that transportation is a multi‑year contracted cost with Huntington Coach.
The administration outlined three levy scenarios the board had requested. One scenario at 2.25% would produce an approximate levy of $73.5 million; lower levy targets at 1.95% and 1.58% were also shown with corresponding dollar differences for the board’s consideration. The presenter explained that a $1.34 million transfer to capital in the expenditure side raised the draft levy to roughly 3.92% and that reducing that transfer was one lever to lower the levy.
Board members debated tradeoffs between using fund balance, increasing the levy, or proposing a bond for the district’s five‑year capital needs, which one member estimated at $50 million to $55 million. "The bill is coming due," a board member said, urging the board to decide whether to fund projects through taxes, debt or reserves.
On the operating side, the board and administration worked through an on‑screen worksheet that modeled specific reductions, including proposed cuts to athletic trip subsidies, postponing some flexible classroom furniture purchases, trimming select maintenance vehicle purchases, and scaling back planned HVAC classroom projects. Administrators cautioned that some reductions would require adding FTEs elsewhere (for example, splitting a language teacher between two languages) or could be limited by certification and contract constraints.
Members asked the administration to produce iterative models that show how changes to the transfer‑to‑capital amount affect the district’s maximum allowable levy and to provide a curated list of recurring discretionary items (the board referred to this as the district's "20%" carryover) for a follow‑up workshop. The presenter said staff would run those calculations and recommended consulting bond counsel and the district architect before pursuing a voter bond.
There was no final vote on a levy at the session; the board directed staff to return with updated worksheets and to schedule a follow‑up meeting to finalize recommended cuts before public hearings and the May budget timeline.
