Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mineola board adopts $114.42 million budget; contingency effects and two ballot propositions explained
Summary
The Mineola Union Free School District Board of Education approved a $114,419,374 budget for 2026–27 and authorized submission of the property tax report card. Administrators highlighted a proposed $1.1 million security increase, described contingency‑budget implications and previewed two May 19 ballot propositions for capital reserve spending and creation.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Mineola Union Free School District Board of Education on April 16 adopted a $114,419,374 spending plan for the 2026–27 school year and authorized the district’s property tax report card for submission to the state.
Assistant Superintendent Will Herman, who led the board’s budget presentation, called the figure “a $114,419,374 budget that represents about a $2.2 million increase or a 1.98% increase year‑over‑year.” He said salaries and benefits remain the largest share of expenses at roughly 78.6% of the total, and that the district is proceeding while several state budget elements remain uncertain.
The board emphasized contingency planning. Herman explained that if residents vote down the budget the first or second time, the district could move to a contingent budget that effectively freezes the tax levy at the prior year’s level and requires the district to remove certain nonessential expenditures. For Mineola, he said, the allowable contingent budget would be roughly $113.176 million — leaving a gap administrators would have to close by cutting programs or using more reserve funds.
The presentation also called attention to several major drivers in next year’s plan. Health insurance costs are projected to increase about 7.27% (roughly $1.2 million), while the district’s employer contribution to the Teacher Retirement System is projected to decrease by roughly $400,000. Herman also flagged a planned reorganization of technology spending into BOCES codes (a $520,000 shift) that is largely an internal reclassification rather than net new spending.
Security spending and capital items drew particular attention. Herman described a proposed security increase that would take the security line from $615,000 to $1.725 million — a $1.1 million increase to provide a guard in every building during the school day, expanded supervisory services from a former law‑enforcement school‑safety expert, and related training and emergency‑response supports. “What do we get for that increased expense? We get a guard in every building for the entire school day through after‑school and evening activities,” Herman said. He added administrators had engaged an outside security firm to assess needs and that staffing patterns could be calibrated after the assessment.
Administrators also described next‑year capital actions that appear on the May 19 ballot: Proposition 2 would authorize up to $3.3 million in capital‑reserve expenditures for three projects at Mineola High School — replacement of two old boilers and rooftop HVAC units serving the fabrication lab and auditorium — using funds already held in the district’s capital reserve. Proposition 3 would establish a new capital reserve to preserve the district’s ability to capture surplus funds as the current reserve approaches its $20 million cap. Both propositions require voter approval and would not raise taxes by themselves.
Board action: The board passed Resolution 89 adopting the 2026–27 educational plan and budget, and authorized the property tax report card. The vote was taken by voice and recorded as passing.
What happens next: The district will hold a formal budget hearing on May 7, and the budget vote and propositions are scheduled for May 19. Administrators said state aid confirmation between the hearing and the vote could change how much appropriated fund balance the plan relies upon.
Context: Herman noted the district continues to operate amid state‑level uncertainty that could affect pension and green‑energy mandates and described the budget as the district’s best estimate under current conditions. He also cautioned that a contingent budget could lead to reductions in extracurriculars or program elements and would affect future levy calculations.
The board’s passage of the budget sets the district on the November–May public timeline that leads to the voter decision in May and signals the administration’s immediate next steps of public outreach and the security assessment.

