Board adopts 2026–27 general fund budget, approves 2.69% property tax levy increase

The Cold Spring Harbor Central School District Board of Education adopted its 2026–27 general fund budget after an extended work session that centered on how much to transfer to capital, which capital projects to prioritize and which recurring staffing proposals the board should fund.

Administrators guided the board through a live budget worksheet that recomputed the levy and budget‑to‑budget percentage as items were removed or restored. Dr. Allison Offerman Selantano, introduced by the board to present the real‑time worksheet, explained the mechanics: the sheet shows the district’s current projected budget total and the tax levy percentage, and the yellow cells update automatically as board choices change. She also noted the district is in a “hold‑harmless” state for some state aid calculations, meaning state aid projections are largely independent of the local levy calculation.

The discussion divided proposed reductions into categories staff labeled “purple” (easier reductions), “yellow” (mixed adjustments) and “green” (new recurring positions). Board members and administrators traded proposals to remove or delay items including a coral‑reef classroom phase, non‑BOCES STEM supplies, a proposed maintenance vehicle purchase, and selected program or supply lines. Several trustees said they were reluctant to cut positions aimed directly at instruction; others argued the board should focus first on operational efficiencies and small line‑item savings.

Capital funding and the five‑year capital plan dominated debate. The district presented a building condition survey and a year‑one capital list that included boilers, exterior masonry and sidewalk/site restoration. Administrators noted roughly $29 million in immediately available funds across capital reserves and the H fund, and they cautioned the board the full five‑year estimate (presented at current prices) totals roughly $48 million. Trustees debated preserving funding for essential items such as boilers and safety‑related site work while trimming masonry work that could be deferred to meet levy targets.

Transportation spending also drew sustained scrutiny. The board discussed route consolidation, switching some low‑usage large buses to vans, and relying on a transportation consultant and a cloud routing system to identify efficiencies before finalizing next year’s contract with Huntington Coach.

After iterative cuts and scenario checks in the live worksheet — including discussion of transfer‑to‑capital amounts and whether to set a fixed levy ceiling — the board moved and seconded a resolution to adopt the general fund budget and the required property tax report card. The reading of the resolution included a general fund number as read aloud at the meeting (transcript shows the amount as read by administration but the recorded digits were truncated in the transcript) and stated a 2.69% increase in the property tax levy. The board approved the motion as read.

What it means: the approved levy increase funds a budget that retains prioritized instructional positions while also allocating money toward some capital needs; board members emphasized the plan will be paired with ongoing communication to the community about five‑year capital priorities and options (reserves, targeted transfers to capital, and, if needed, voter propositions or bonding for large projects).

Next steps: administration will finalize the three‑part budget documents and the property tax report card for state filing and will continue targeted line‑item review and public engagement on the five‑year capital plan. The board also asked administration and the transportation consultant to continue analyzing route efficiency to identify additional recurring savings.

Votes at a glance: The board voted to adopt the 2026–27 general fund budget and the property tax report card; the read resolution included a 2.69% increase in the property tax levy and the motion was approved by voice vote as recorded at the meeting (the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally).