Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the K12 Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Southampton officials outline $84.54 million preliminary 2026–27 budget, propose 1% tax-levy increase

Southampton Union Free School District Board of Education · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District presenters described a $84,536,962 preliminary 2026–27 budget that would use roughly $3.1 million from reserves and proposes a 1% tax-levy increase (about $648,396); leaders cited enrollment declines, benefit cost pressures, and program priorities including literacy, dual-language supports, PD, SEL and K–12 STEAM.

District leaders presented a preliminary $84,536,962 budget proposal and proposed a 1% tax-levy increase at a board work session, saying the plan balanced program investments with restraint in the levy.

"It is just a great opportunity to begin to discuss what our 26–27 district budget will look like. I'm very excited about all the opportunities that we will offer students," said Dr. Morell, who opened the work session and framed the budget around the district strategic plan and a new Portrait of a Graduate. Dr. Morell highlighted investments in literacy (a new reading program pilot at elementary grades based on the science of reading), expanded professional development, dual-language program enhancements, social-emotional learning and restorative-justice supports, and continued K–12 STEAM alignment.

School business officer Mr. Ming presented the financial details, projecting K–12 enrollment at about 1,075 students (a net reduction of about 29 students, or roughly 3%). He said the district must comply with New York State's 2% tax-cap formula and is proposing a tax levy of $65,488,022 — an increase of $648,396, or roughly 1% over 2025–26.

Mr. Ming said state aid comprises a relatively small share of the district budget (about 4%, roughly $3.4 million) and that recent increases in state aid were driven largely by expansion of UPK funding tied to state criteria. He cautioned that some state-aid components are conditional and not fully guaranteed when he prepared the draft.

To limit the levy increase, the draft budget would appropriate about $3.1 million from reserves, including approximately $1.1 million from the proceeds of a prior property sale. The speakers said those reserve appropriations make the 1% levy possible without larger tax increases.

The presentation also named several uncontrollable cost pressures: Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) pension rates Mr. Ming projected around 8.25%–8.75% for 2026–27 (down from 9.5%), and Employees' Retirement System (ERS) projected to about 17.5% (up from 16.5%). Liability-insurance premiums were estimated to rise about 11%, and health-insurance costs have been increasing; Mr. Ming gave plan examples (individual plan roughly $19,337 annually; family plan roughly $44,000) for planning purposes.

Mr. Ming summarized payroll and benefits as the largest budget component: roughly $46 million in contractual salaries plus nearly $5 million in additional salary-related costs (coaching, substitutes, extracurriculars), and fringe benefits amounting to about 48.5% of salaries. He reported average salary and benefit figures used in planning: average salary about $92,326 and average fringe benefits about $44,788, producing an average total employee cost near $137,000.

Board members asked follow-up questions about timelines for centering-room training and board-level AI training, and noted the district's long-term enrollment decline (about 50 students per year historically). Mr. Ming said tuition revenue from out-of-district students has fallen (roughly $600,000 less projected), which offsets some of the levy increase.

Next steps, as stated during the work session: continue budget refinement with building principals and directors, review with the audit and finance committee, and present a more finalized draft at upcoming meetings with a planned final-adoption date cited to the board for March 24.

The work session discussion did not include a formal adoption; presenters described the figures above as the first draft and said additional adjustments are possible as state aid and final assessments are confirmed.