Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K 12 Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three Village board sends revised 2026–27 budget to June 16 revote after cuts to capital projects and staff
Summary
The Three Village Central School District board approved a revised 2026–27 budget to be put before voters on June 16, reducing capital projects from $3.0M to $2.5M, cutting a small number of instructional and non-instructional positions and lowering the proposed tax levy increase to 3.49%. If voters reject it, the district would enter contingency and face roughly $6.24M in additional cuts, officials said.
The Three Village Central School District Board of Education voted on June 3 to present a revised 2026–27 budget to district voters on June 16 after the first proposal failed in May. Mr. Carlson, who led the district’s public hearing, said the revised plan trims capital spending and staff to reduce the proposed tax levy increase to 3.49% over the 2025–26 levy while holding the overall budget-to-budget increase to 2.2%.
Why it matters: the revised budget lowers the district’s previously proposed tax levy and reduces planned capital work, but a second voter rejection would force the district onto a contingency budget that Mr. Carlson said would require “$6,243,000 in further reductions” and eliminate capital projects as allowed under contingency rules.
What changed: Mr. Carlson told the board the final state budget increased foundation aid to 2% compared with earlier projections, providing about $290,000 more than the district had anticipated before the first vote. To shrink expenses the district reduced capital projects from $3.0 million to $2.5 million, identified five additional instructional and five additional non‑instructional staff reductions (some via attrition), and cut co‑curricular funding and field‑trip support. The revised package, he said, produces a net reduction of roughly $1,590,000 from the original proposal and places the district $1,379,813 below the recalculated tax cap.
Board questions and parent impact: board members asked how cuts would affect families. Mr. Carlson said reductions to field trips and clubs could mean more family cost‑sharing, fewer trips, using school buses instead of coach buses, combining clubs, or requiring fundraising by participant groups. The board decided to keep community swim and adult‑education programs in the proposed budget and said fee increases for those programs were likely to help offset costs.
Timing and capital projects: Mr. Carlson warned that even if voters approve the budget, district capital projects still require state approvals and would not necessarily begin immediately; he estimated a six‑to‑nine‑month approval timeline in many cases.
A board member summarized the stakes plainly: “If this budget doesn’t pass, there’s no more options. We go we go on to contingency and that means no increase to the tax levy at all,” Mr. Carlson said during the hearing, characterizing the scale of additional cuts that contingency would require.
Votes at a glance: the board also approved a separate resolution authorizing the district to explore refunding a callable serial bond (a refinancing that would not extend the term) and voted to proceed with consent‑agenda business including donations and special‑education contracts. The bond‑refunding authorization passed unanimously.
What’s next: the district will post a line‑item budget online and hold the budget revote on June 16 (the board said voting will be held at Ward Melville High School, with early voting available). If voters approve the revised budget, the district would move forward with planned projects and staffing under the spending limits provided; if voters reject it, the board would be required to put a contingency budget in place and identify the additional program and staffing reductions required under state law.
