Millbrook board proposes piercing tax cap to close roughly $1 million shortfall

The Millbrook Central School District presented a proposed 2026–27 budget that would exceed the state tax cap by $1 million to avoid program and staff cuts, district leaders said at the March 24 board meeting.

Superintendent Caroline Hernandez Pella framed the choice as one between ‘‘piercing the cap’’ and large programmatic reductions. She told the board the district’s expense pressures — including a $574,507 increase in health insurance, rising special‑education costs and an interfund transfer tied to a capital project — had produced a preliminary gap of about $2.95 million; after recent reductions and planned fund‑balance use, she said the remaining shortfall was approximately $1.0 million.

District finance staff put the proposed overall budget at $38,791,430 and showed a projected 2026–27 expense estimate previously cited in the presentation of about $39,323,200. Administrators said anticipated state aid was $4,974,859 (an increase of $239,211 from prior estimates) but repeatedly cautioned final state figures are uncertain and historically have varied after the district builds its local budget.

The administration outlined the options if the community does not approve an increased levy. S3 warned that a failed May vote would likely force the district to a contingency budget that would revert the levy to the prior year and require roughly $2.9 million in cuts; the presentation said that scenario could include deep program and staff reductions and restricting transportation to the state minimum, which staff estimated could end discretionary transportation service for roughly 23% of currently served students.

On the specifics of the proposed levy increase, S3 said: "Piercing the cap requires a super majority. So it means a minimum of 60% plus one vote," and urged the board and community to weigh the tradeoffs between taxing more now and risking larger cuts later.

Administrators identified non‑mandated programs that would be most at risk if the levy is not increased, including the pre‑K program (presented as a $334,000 line item that the administration said is about half grant‑funded), extracurricular stipends, elementary band, field‑trip transportation, Summer Scholars and other co‑curricular activities. The presentation said eight positions had already been removed from the draft budget and estimated that cutting an additional 14 positions — roughly 8% of the district’s labor force — would be necessary to close the remaining gap solely through staff reductions.

Transportation and routing choices were discussed at length. Staff described three modeling options (a single‑tier run, a two‑tier run, or a combined approach) and cautioned that driver shortages complicate any plan that reduces runs; they also said some modeling would require more buses and drivers, not fewer, to preserve route travel times. The business staff noted that shifting to the state‑minimum transportation policy (elementary students living within two miles and secondary students within three miles would not be transported) would have significant consequences for families and could reduce service for a sizable number of students.

The administration presented two taxpayer impact figures during the meeting: at one point staff said the additional levy would amount to about $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed value, and elsewhere the presentation referenced an increase of about $0.56 per $1,000 (the slides and spoken remarks tied the difference to the inclusion or exclusion of the capital‑project portion of the levy). Board members asked staff to reconcile the slide figures for public messaging.

Next steps set by the district: the board is scheduled to adopt a proposed budget on April 21 and the community will vote on the budget on May 19. Administrators said they would continue to refine contingency options, consult with state aid staff and seek every possible revenue and cost‑reduction opportunity before final adoption.

Why it matters: district leaders say the choice before voters is preserving current programming and staffing by approving a one‑time levy increase now or accepting deeper and recurring cuts that would reduce services and positions if state aid does not materialize as projected.